Is MADB and anti-Mormon website?

[cjcampbell]

Is it just me, or have a lot of the topic titles posted by people who supposedly think they are good members of the Church become more than a little bit hostile? Reading these topic titles, one would think that we are exactly the repressive, domineering cult that some antis claim we are. I am beginning to wonder if some of the "apologists" aren't among our worst enemies.

[sethpayne]

Is it just me, or have a lot of the topic titles posted by people who supposedly think they are good members of the Church become more than a little bit hostile? Reading these topic titles, one would think that we are exactly the repressive, domineering cult that some antis claim we are. I am beginning to wonder if some of the "apologists" aren't among our worst enemies.

I agree!!!

How dare Consig or anyone else say that All is not well in Zion!!!

[mercyngrace]

What's funny is that you probably don't see that in just asking the question, you've proven the point many anti's make, CJ. If we can't have frank discussions about our flaws, then we are domineering and repressive. Pretending that everything is perfect is nonsense - if it were we'd be sipping cocoa and crunching biscotti with Enoch in that great big Barnes & Nobles in the sky...

The real beauty is that we can be dedicated, true to the Lord, our covenants, and the church with our eyes wide open to those areas that need improvement. If anything, that is a testimony of the divinity of the church.

[selek]

Is it just me, or have a lot of the topic titles posted by people who supposedly think they are good members of the Church become more than a little bit hostile? Reading these topic titles, one would think that we are exactly the repressive, domineering cult that some antis claim we are. I am beginning to wonder if some of the "apologists" aren't among our worst enemies.

It's crossed my mind, as well CJC.

People can become just as addicted to notoriety as to celebrity- and have to keep "upping the stakes" in order to get their fix.

[Senator]

Great, now we have to feel guilty for being made to feel guilty!

[Mortal Man]

I am beginning to wonder if some of the "apologists" aren't among our worst enemies.

The problem with apologists is that they fail to heed the counsel from their brethren regarding the proper construction of arguments. They deliver travelogues, personal stories that don't go anywhere and long-winded recollections on vague topics that don't edify. Some of them, who've not yet learned to express their own thoughts, simply post whisperings off the web. A true argument is short, simple and sticks to the facts. It invites the spirit of learning and all are enlightened.

[Lightbearer]

Is it just me, or have a lot of the topic titles posted by people who supposedly think they are good members of the Church become more than a little bit hostile? Reading these topic titles, one would think that we are exactly the repressive, domineering cult that some antis claim we are. I am beginning to wonder if some of the "apologists" aren't among our worst enemies.

No it is not just you, and I am really getting sick and tired of hearing it from these so-called faithful members who kind find nothing they like about the Church but are to cowardly to do anything about it in person, but anonymously carp about it on this forum. If there are any real "problems" in the Church a public forum is not the place to air dirty laundry. There are channels to go through to address such issues. At least with the "Anti-Mormons" you know exactly where you stand, they hate you, they try to undermine your faith, they cannot find anything that the Church ever does right... wait that almost sounds like the "Apologetic critics" that is what I will call them. I guess it is a little nicer than calling them apostates or traitors. But yes I have noticed it on this board, criticism of our leaders, our manuals, our General Authorities... even our testimony meetings. If we are to ever become a Zion people it is not going to be from constant faultfinding, criticism, and evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

[mercyngrace]

The problem with apologists is that they fail to heed the counsel from their brethren regarding the proper construction of arguments. They deliver travelogues, personal stories that don't go anywhere and long-winded recollections on vague topics that don't edify. Some of them, who've not yet learned to express their own thoughts, simply post whisperings off the web. A true argument is short, simple and sticks to the facts. It invites the spirit of learning and all are enlightened.

Mortal Man,

At the risk of being accused of falling in with the wrong crowd... I must admit that I find your sense of humor quite pleasing as of late. ROTFL!

[elguanteloko]

Is it just me, or have a lot of the topic titles posted by people who supposedly think they are good members of the Church become more than a little bit hostile? Reading these topic titles, one would think that we are exactly the repressive, domineering cult that some antis claim we are. I am beginning to wonder if some of the "apologists" aren't among our worst enemies.

some users have said something very similar about me... so, I will try to answer. First, I don't consider myself a 'good' member of the Church; just leave it at 'being a member' of the Church. Second, is to question something being hostile towards it? Thirdly, some mormons are repressive and have cult-like attitudes.

[elguanteloko]

The problem with apologists is that they fail to heed the counsel from their brethren regarding the proper construction of arguments. They deliver travelogues, personal stories that don't go anywhere and long-winded recollections on vague topics that don't edify. Some of them, who've not yet learned to express their own thoughts, simply post whisperings off the web. A true argument is short, simple and sticks to the facts. It invites the spirit of learning and all are enlightened.

what apologists are you talking about? any examples?

[mercyngrace]

No it is not just you, and I am really getting sick and tired of hearing it from these so-called faithful members who kind find nothing they like about the Church but are to cowardly to do anything about it in person, but anonymously carp about it on this forum. If there are any real "problems" in the Church a public forum is not the place to air dirty laundry. There are channels to go through to address such issues. At least with the "Anti-Mormons" you know exactly where you stand, they hate you, they try to undermine your faith, they cannot find anything that the Church ever does right... wait that almost sounds like the "Apologetic critics" that is what I will call them. I guess it is a little nicer than calling them apostates or traitors. But yes I have noticed it on this board, criticism of our leaders, our manuals, our General Authorities... even our testimony meetings. If we are to ever become a Zion people it is not going to be from constant faultfinding, criticism, and evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Lightbearer,

You always post such well-thought out and insightful comments and I usually appreciate and learn so much from you! You make a good point about building Zion. I'd like to add that Zion isn't built by compulsion but by persuasion. And getting told that you are a near apostate because you have some minor disagreements with other church members over policy issues isn't very persuasive. What happened to love unfeigned?

MnG

[sunstoned]

No it is not just you, and I am really getting sick and tired of hearing it from these so-called faithful members who kind find nothing they like about the Church but are to cowardly to do anything about it in person, but anonymously carp about it on this forum. If there are any real "problems" in the Church a public forum is not the place to air dirty laundry. There are channels to go through to address such issues. At least with the "Anti-Mormons" you know exactly where you stand, they hate you, they try to undermine your faith, they cannot find anything that the Church ever does right... wait that almost sounds like the "Apologetic critics" that is what I will call them. I guess it is a little nicer than calling them apostates or traitors. But yes I have noticed it on this board, criticism of our leaders, our manuals, our General Authorities... even our testimony meetings. If we are to ever become a Zion people it is not going to be from constant faultfinding, criticism, and evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Hate? undermine faith? Don't you think this is a little over the top?

[Jeff K.]

No it is not just you, and I am really getting sick and tired of hearing it from these so-called faithful members who kind find nothing they like about the Church but are to cowardly to do anything about it in person, but anonymously carp about it on this forum. If there are any real "problems" in the Church a public forum is not the place to air dirty laundry. There are channels to go through to address such issues. At least with the "Anti-Mormons" you know exactly where you stand, they hate you, they try to undermine your faith, they cannot find anything that the Church ever does right... wait that almost sounds like the "Apologetic critics" that is what I will call them. I guess it is a little nicer than calling them apostates or traitors. But yes I have noticed it on this board, criticism of our leaders, our manuals, our General Authorities... even our testimony meetings. If we are to ever become a Zion people it is not going to be from constant faultfinding, criticism, and evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Hence my signature below.

[cjcampbell]

What's funny is that you probably don't see that in just asking the question, you've proven the point many anti's make, CJ. If we can't have frank discussions about our flaws, then we are domineering and repressive. Pretending that everything is perfect is nonsense - if it were we'd be sipping cocoa and crunching biscotti with Enoch in that great big Barnes & Nobles in the sky...

The real beauty is that we can be dedicated, true to the Lord, our covenants, and the church with our eyes wide open to those areas that need improvement. If anything, that is a testimony of the divinity of the church.

I think it is entirely possible to have frank discussion about our flaws without the kinds of topic titles I am seeing. In fact, the topic titles seem more fitted to something you might see on CARM. The message I get from things like "Oh look! We still have a tiny little bit of freedom here! The Brethren must have somehow missed this one" (to slightly exaggerate the tone of one of these topics) is neither positive nor constructive. The weird thing is, when I read the discussion of these topics, the actual post usually only faintly resembles the attitude displayed in the title, if it all. Some of these titles seem to have nothing to do with the actual post at all. It is as if some anti-Mormon hacker has broken in and changed all the topic titles.

But then, if I have any sense of where we are less than perfect, it is that we are less than perfect in living the gospel and believing the doctrines of the Church. Being less than perfect in apologizing to sin and adopting every philosophy devised by man does not bother me in the least.

[Maya]

Is it just me, or have a lot of the topic titles posted by people who supposedly think they are good members of the Church become more than a little bit hostile? Reading these topic titles, one would think that we are exactly the repressive, domineering cult that some antis claim we are. I am beginning to wonder if some of the "apologists" aren't among our worst enemies.

Not just you. I was gone for quite a while and the discusition has changed. Is it because anties have become cleavere to dress their questions in innocence or because people are "daring" to ask more. The thing that really I cant get is taht the same questions keep coming and coming and they get same answers which ofen is : We dont have enough evidence to KNOW, go pray about it...

I borrow a few words from an other forum as I think it was so well said: " The bottom line is for me is (regarding your roadblock)... pray and ask God if it's all true. It is. Or... take it on faith and grow other parts of your testimony. That was my dad's advice to me. He struggles with JS altogether, but believes most everything else. And through study and prayer, I've found there's very little that has to be taken on faith. God gives answers if we diligently seek."

Do we seek diligently? Or do we seek a faster way to the truth by trying to jump on someone elses path?

Maybe the search should be made a bit easier so people could look at the earlier threads easier... or si it just me...

The problem with anties is that they have NO intention to stop asking the same questions over and over again they have heard have shaken someone elses faith and when an LDS sincerely asks it is difficult to know which is asking a wicious anti or a member with question!

Maybe we have got too much charm in here.... in all ways. The negativity is catching.

[Facsimile 3]

I'm starting to get annoyed now too. I think the member stones being thrown at the church may be due to the fact that we have a lot less formidable opposition on this forum than we did 2 years ago, so as a way of trying to keep the opposition that stimulates conversation we complain about the imperfections of a lay clergy and volunteer speakers. I feel that those of us (definitely me included) members who are overly critical and negative who could see how things could be so much better really have within us such a power to edify and lift beyond other members, the adversary has just guided us in flipping that gift on its head.

"When the Speaker Begins, I Listen"

Years ago I was sitting in a sacrament meeting with my father, whose name is the same as my own, Henry Eyring. He seemed to be enjoying what I thought was a terrible talk. I watched my father, and to my amazement, his face was beaming as the speaker droned on. I kept stealing looks back at him, and sure enough, through the whole thing he had this beatific smile.

Our home was near enough to the ward that we walked home. I remember walking with my father on the shoulder of the road that wasn't paved. I kicked a stone ahead of me as I plotted what I would do next. I finally got up enough courage to ask him what he thought of the meeting. He said it was wonderful.

Now I really had a problem. My father had a wonderful sense of humor, but you didn't want to push it too far. I was puzzled. I was trying to summon up enough courage to ask him how I could have such a different opinion of that meeting and that speaker.

Like all good fathers, he must have read my mind because he started to laugh. He said: "Hal, let me tell you something. Since I was a very young man, I have taught myself to do something in a church meeting. When the speaker begins, I listen carefully and ask myself what it is he is trying to say. Then once I think I know what he is trying to accomplish, I give myself a sermon on that subject." He let that sink in for a moment as we walked along. Then, with that special self-deprecating chuckle of his, he said, "Hal, since then I have never been to a bad meeting."

I don't' suppose he used all of the steps I have described to you. He may very well have prayed for that speaker. Over a lifetime he had studied. When he knew what the speaker was trying to say, he had a deep well to go to so he could give himself that sermon.

My father was the kind of man who would have listened to that high council visitor. If he had felt a little pricking in his heart to do something, Dad would have done it. He could listen to anybody. He used to embarrass me when we stopped to get gas because he would seek advice from the gas station attendant. Dad would always treat him as an equal. Dad would say: "Look, I can learn something from anybody. They have had experiences I haven't had."

[mercyngrace]

Not just you. I was gone for quite a while and the discusition has changed. Is it because anties have become cleavere to dress their questions in innocence or because people are "daring" to ask more. The thing that really I cant get is taht the same questions keep coming and coming and they get same answers which ofen is : We dont have enough evidence to KNOW, go pray about it...

I borrow a few words from an other forum as I think it was so well said: " The bottom line is for me is (regarding your roadblock)... pray and ask God if it's all true. It is. Or... take it on faith and grow other parts of your testimony. That was my dad's advice to me. He struggles with JS altogether, but believes most everything else. And through study and prayer, I've found there's very little that has to be taken on faith. God gives answers if we diligently seek."

Do we seek diligently? Or do we seek a faster way to the truth by trying to jump on someone elses path?

Maybe the search should be made a bit easier so people could look at the earlier threads easier... or si it just me...

The problem with anties is that they have NO intention to stop asking the same questions over and over again they have heard have shaken someone elses faith and when an LDS sincerely asks it is difficult to know which is asking a wicious anti or a member with question!

Maybe we have got too much charm in here.... in all ways. The negativity is catching.

Maya,

I think the same questions coming up over and over is from non-members. The threads at the heart of the OP, if I understand CJCampbell's frustration, are those coming from members and are critical of policies, logistical aspects of the church, and other non-salvational aspects of the church. (Have I got that right, CJ?)

For me, these are areas where there is flexibility. You can be a good members of the church and not appreciate a manual or policy change. You can think that as a people we've got a long way to go in one area or another (certainly the prophet and apostles do - they keep talking about the same issues at conference) and still be faithful and true to your covenants. You can even disagree with someone else's interpretation of doctrine because "Do you believe all the published works of Bruce R. McConkie?" isn't a temple recommend question. LOL! IMO, the bigger issue is the sentiment that we should plaster a scarlet letter A for apostate on every board member we disagree with. That kind of Pharisitical thinking is distinctly un-Christ-like.

[Bsix]

I tend to lean toward agreeing with the premise of this thread.

Of late, there has been more than a little tone of criticism of the Church. Church leaders teachings are criticized, Church lessons are insulted, policies are disputed, our Church meetings are negatively depicted. The overall LDS Church experience is portrayed as boring, guilt-laden, and difficult to experience. On a regular basis, we display hostility and anger with each other. For a supposedly religious board, there is mild coarse language and occasional mild sexual innuendo. All from those who seem to represent themselves as Latter Day Saints.

As a representation of Mormonism, I am not sure that this message board is always as appropriate as it could/should be. I wonder what a non-Mormon or wavering Mormon might think from an overall 'feel' of Mormonism?

Six

[sethpayne]

I tend to lean toward agreeing with the premise of this thread.

Of late, there has been more than a little tone of criticism of the Church. Church leaders teachings are criticized, Church lessons are insulted, policies are disputed, our Church meetings are negatively depicted. The overall LDS Church experience is portrayed as boring, guilt-laden, and difficult to experience. On a regular basis, we display hostility and anger with each other. For a supposedly religious board, there is mild coarse language and occasional mild sexual innuendo. All from those who seem to represent themselves as Latter Day Saints.

As a representation of Mormonism, I am not sure that this message board is always as appropriate as it could/should be. I wonder what a non-Mormon or wavering Mormon might think from an overall 'feel' of Mormonism?

Six

Hi Six,

I see where you are coming from but I have a little different view. If we never discuss our frustration with current policies, manuals, etc... how can those policies improve? I think some Church members believe that because a policy or manual is approved by the FP or Q12 -- that it must be absolutely and 100% God-approved. To me, this denies the humanity of Church leaders. I think that as a community of Saints we have a responsibility to raise concerns and voice our opinions.

However, there is a fine line between pure whining, and providing constructive criticism. Whining, for the sheer sake of whining, gets us nowhere. On the other hand, observing current policies, manuals, Church schedules etc.... and providing our commentary on what parts of thse policies/manuals/schedules work and what parts do not work helps to create an effective community with more focus on saving souls, than keeping doctrine "pure."

I mean, who are we kidding here? Does it make any sense for Church lessons in Utah County to be the EXACTLY the same as those given in Ghana?

A few years ago I was asked to help with a YW lesson on Fatherhood. The lesson went on and on about the importance of Fathers and how raising Children with a father present is the ideal etc... Points, of course, which I completely agree with. Problem is, the class was being taught in an urban area where not one of the girls in the class either 1) knew their father or 2) had any contact with their father as he was incarcerated. It would have been absolutely pointless to ask the girls the manual's questions of "How has your father blessed your life?" or "In what ways is your father an example of being a good Priesthood holder?"

In the end, the wise teacher went off-manual but maintained the spirit of what the lesson was about: Fatherhood is important. The teacher spent the hour teaching the girls about how they, as daughters of God, deserved respect from the young men they dated and had a great discussion about what they could do to prepare for healthy relationships as these girls had precious few examples in their own lives of how such relationships should work.

Anyway, I completley understand correlation and do see a need for it. However, I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far to one side. Individual Ward/Stake autonomy to adjust the lessons according to local need seems, for me at least, to be important as well.

[Bsix]

If we never discuss our frustration with current policies, manuals, etc... how can those policies improve?

I understand that point of view. However, is MADB intended to be a venue for members of the Church to complain and agitate for change? Or, is this a forum for apologetic defense of the faith?

Also, do some of us really think that by complaining about the Church on this message board, we are influencing Church policy?

I would also suggest that the quoted statement above focuses only on a single aspect of my observation. Along with an ark-steadying mentality, there are a number of other behaviors that do not represent our faith well. Taken as a whole, I worry that this message board misses the mark in presenting the Gospel I love and know to be true.

Regards,

Six

[sethpayne]

Also, do some of us really think that by complaining about the Church on this message board, we are influencing Church policy?

In a direct sense, no. However, I think the board could be a representation of certain types of faithful members who become frustrated by some specific policies. And, the Brethren most certainly are aware of cultural trends within the Church.

I look no further than the changes to the endowment. There were murmurs and rumblings that the ceremony was disturbing to some people and what happens? The Church conducts a wide-survey in the late 80's to find out what is disturbing people. I personally have no doubt that the results of this survey helped influence the (long-overdue) changes in 1990.

I would also think that similar discomfort with the initiatory led President Hinckley to ponder on the matter in 2004 before he introduced changes in Jan of 2005.

Seth

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer,

You always post such well-thought out and insightful comments and I usually appreciate and learn so much from you! You make a good point about building Zion. I'd like to add that Zion isn't built by compulsion but by persuasion. And getting told that you are a near apostate because you have some minor disagreements with other church members over policy issues isn't very persuasive. What happened to love unfeigned?

MnG

Thanks for the kind words, yes I agree compulsion is not of God, but who is trying to compel anyone here? Has any General Authority or local leader for that matter, ever compelled anyone to do anything? As for minor disagreements, perhaps the criticism of the teaching materials approved by the First Presidency and the Twelve is a minor matter, I do not think so. To me Loyalty is an important virtue, it was important in the War in Heaven, the lack of it meant damnation to one third of the hosts of heaven. Is there love unfeigned being shown when people accuse the General Authorities of preaching their own opinions (which in essence is an apostate act, if one knowingly preaches false doctrine.)? When one accuses Spencer W. Kimball of being arrogant for having a middle initial! Is that a minor thing? Trivial I know, but when an entire thread is dedicated to it and has the tone that somehow he was not as humble as those who did not use a middle name, I begin to wonder what is the point of such a thread. It seems that there is a movement here to accuse the brethren for not being as correct as the pioneer prophets were, because they refuse to teach the Adam God theory, or bow before the wisdom of the world. Then there is the constant refrain of the prophets not being infallible and this is used as an excuse to reject any teaching or doctrine or policy that one does not like or want to accept. I think all of this combined is more than just some minor "warts" we are discussing. When one denies fundamental establish doctrines (divine investiture of authority) and accuses those who stand up for what is published in the official manuals of the Church, then I begin to wonder about their loyalty and their honesty. I realize this may sound harsh and I also realize this is a "debate board." But I would prefer to argue with open and avowed enemies of the Church, and yes they are enemies just a sure as anyone who has ever opposed this work. But when friends of the Church and active members who hold (or say they hold) positions of trust start acting like the opposition, it makes one pause. Perhaps I am overly sensitive, or maybe I just grow weary of the constant back biting. As for accusing one of being an apostate, I can only say I do not know anyone on this board personally, I can only judge from the posts made here, often there is misunderstanding, but I think I can safely say that when I see the type of things that have been posted here of late, I think of the following quote:

(Heber C. Kimball, Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1856, p. 26 {as quoted in: Chapter 27: Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy,

[Bsix]

I guess my point is to ask what is the strategic purpose for this message board?

-- Are we an apologetics site that hopes to defend the Church and promote faithfulness and conversion to the Church?

-- Or, are we a generalized LDS discussion board where members of the Church debate Church issues of frustration and doctrine among themselves?

I try to imagine our friends who are not LDS who drop by this site to find members of the Church engaging in criticizing the Church...disputing the leaders...complaining about all manner of Church related topics...questioning doctrines...being combative toward each other.

If that is the image we put out there...are we accomplishing any objective that relates to apologetics?

Six

[O-Brother]

Is it just me, or have a lot of the topic titles posted by people who supposedly think they are good members of the Church become more than a little bit hostile? Reading these topic titles, one would think that we are exactly the repressive, domineering cult that some antis claim we are. I am beginning to wonder if some of the "apologists" aren't among our worst enemies.

What is your definition of a "good member?" What's your definition of an enemy? According to scripture, we're supposed to "love our enemies and do good to them" anyway. I think, overall, it's just us people doing our usual babbling and exercising our brains over theology. Every generation does the same thing. Nothing new and nothing to be concerned with, really. Most of it is just babble about this or that, about the Man, the cult, the Church, polygamy, the doctrines, the white and delightsome people, the BOM, Joseph Smith, BY, etc. Then we die and another generation takes over with either the same or a variation of the same ol' babblings.

Yet, God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, all while we babble away at our keyboards.

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? -- Daniel 4:35

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called... -- 1 Timothy 6:20

Frankly, today we might have what could be labeled as "The Tower Of Babble"

Call me Brother Babble, if you will.

[Senator]

.....but who is trying to compel anyone here?

So what would you like to do about it Lightbearer?

Shall we raise up a MADB Disciplinary Court and march forth a list(of your making) trouble makers before it?

You're right, I think you are a little to sensitive to be interacting on this forum. Maybe you should stop reading it. Go do something else for awhile. There's nothing wrong with that.