Is MADB and anti-Mormon website?

[Bsix]

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.

I don't think that Lightbearer is suggesting and compulsion at all. S/He has simply stated an opinion. This discussion alone may be enough for some LDS posters to consider the impact and appropriateness of how they post.

Eventually, if this forum continues to (d)evolve into a LDS-members-criticize-the-Church forum...you will most likely see some stop participating. If that happens, you will likely see less defending of the faith and a great deal more blurring of the line between critic and faithful member.

Six

[JDave]

I think the issue is not so much the choice of topics (though the titles people choose are often purposefully EXTREME and CONTROVERSIAL -- ooh ooh read me!!!), rather the attitude and demeanor with which we discuss the issues.

It is lamentable that people choose such blaring titles, but they do it because it generates responses. One could always just deny them the responses they seem to crave.

But we could all evaluate our tone, even in threads like this discussing forum tone.

[Lightbearer]

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.

Perhaps you may follow your own counsel.

[Senator]

Perhaps you may follow your own counsel.

I have, and I will no doubt do it again.

[mercyngrace]

I agree loyalty is important. But I want to focus on what you say here:

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:As for the right to criticize or comment on teaching materials, anyone can, each manual has an address where their comments can be directed for consideration instead of coming to an apologetics forum to whine about it.

It matters not what others say or do. It matters how we respond to it. We can only judge our own spirituality and so the default position in our dealings with others is compassion. Personally, most of the issues that you raise as bothersome aren't problems for me. I'm fine with the manuals. I'm okay at taking statements by church leaders as accurate, even troublesome ones, until clarification comes... and so on. The reason I jumped into the fray on this is twofold:

(1) There is just as much danger in spending all our time spit shining the marble on the temple exterior as there is pointing out all the cracks in the plaster on the inside. What you see as the seeds of apostasy, I see as opportunities for growth. We never move forward unless we get a little uncomfy where we presently are and refusing to acknowledge our imperfections disallows room for continued progression. (We haven't received the sealed portion of the BOM yet so we already know we aren't all that ;-)

(2) It seems inconsistent and hypocritical to complain that enemies of the church describe us as repressive and cultish while lambasting fellow active church members for not thinking just like we do. While the Church Commissioner of Education, Neal A. Maxwell penned the following (New Era Aug 1971) statement which sums up how I feel quite nicely.

There is a real risk that members of the Church

[Nofear]

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?

I personally try not to think of this as a board for non-members who might be interested in the Gospel. I think of it more as an apologist playground. From this board I try to get and do the following:

• Get a pulse of some of the arguments put forth by our critics.
• Learn interesting tidbits, views, apologetic responses from our faithful.
• Oppose poorly formed or misguided apologetic defenses by our faithful.

So far, this board has been pretty for me in meeting those three goals. I'm even grateful for the first one so I feel no need to lurk the "other" discussion boards. I mostly ignore message threads where there is silly criticism or whining.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

There is a real risk that members of the Church

[Senator]

(1) There is just as much danger in spending all our time spit shining the marble on the temple exterior as there is pointing out all the cracks in the plaster on the inside.

What a great analogy M&G.

Well done.

[mercyngrace]

One supposes that vast avenue includes ill speaking of the Lord's annointed? There is a clearly marked corridor to salvation and exaltation. Intolerance has little to do with people who decide to speculate for instance and teach false facts as facts. Or those who seek ways in which to undermine church teachings in order to fulfill their own egocentric world. The "look at me crowd" often forgets the source of their knowledge and instead seeks to replace that source with their own intellectual capacity.

It is one thing to discuss distinct aspects of doctrine. It is another entirely to imply a narrow mindedness to those who adhere closely prophets and apostles. The numerous posts of chapel mormons versus internet mormons is a good case in point. The desire to push one speculative point in gospel doctrine rather than the goal of the lesson is another.

These things are also signposts.

I don't know who "One" is but I'm Cate and I don't think speaking ill of the Lord's annointed is a good thing. But then, I don't think disagreeing with them is always the same as speaking ill. Sometimes it's just disagreeing. Leaders themselves have recognized latitude in statements by prophets and GAs. Link to article at FAIR

Who's implying narrowmindness in adherence? Neal A. Maxwell? I know I didn't. Narrowmindedness isn't in your remaining faithful to your understanding. It's presuming others can't be faithful while not sharing your conclusions.

(Though admittedly the thread about middle initials was the height of silliness, IMO...)

[Eric Blob]

I do think it's good in a way though. A lot of anti-mormons claim that mormons say nothing critical whatsoever about the church, and almost worship their church leaders. They can easily be proved wrong if they read this forum.

[Jeff K.]

I don't know who "One" is but I'm Cate and I don't think speaking ill of the Lord's annointed is a good thing. But then, I don't think disagreeing with them is always the same as speaking ill. Sometimes it's just disagreeing. Leaders themselves have recognized latitude in statements by prophets and GAs. Link to article at FAIR

Who's implying narrowmindness in adherence? Neal A. Maxwell? I know I didn't. Narrowmindedness isn't in your remaining faithful to your understanding. It's presuming others can't be faithful while not sharing your conclusions.

(Though admittedly the thread about middle initials was the height of silliness, IMO...)

I apologize if you feel the comment was directed at you, it isn't. However there tends to be a certain lattitude given to those who claim to be members of support, that simultaneously attack, in both subtle and unsubtle ways, church policy, lesson manual, talks by apostles....

And those who quote the apostles, show a preponderance of the evidence in regard to issues also are called narrow minded, sock puppets and what not. I don't mind differences of opinion, however when the only way that difference can be manifest with "the ward isn't entertaining, lessons are boring, the manual is bad... and so on, then the path has been left. I am only left to presume a lack of faithfulness based, not on the conclusion so much as the undermining of the church and its authorities at every turn. It is noted that some of those who claim faithfulness while undermining the church, have their strongest supporters from those who disdain or hate the church or who have left it. They raise the strongest support, and that is telling.

[Senator]

I am only left to presume a lack of faithfulness

And I don't know why you feel a need to do this. If you were a Bishop of "these people" perhaps ok. But this is a discussion board?

[Jeff K.]

I think Neal A Maxwell is an excellent example of someone who may have distinct conclusions from other positions set forth and yet, still be supportive of the church in every sense of the word, the same holds true with McConkie.

You don't see anti Mormons running to support them when their opinions diverge.

[Jeff K.]

And I don't know why you feel a need to do this. If you were a Bishop of "these people" perhaps ok. But this is a discussion board?

No, you presume that only a bishop may presume a lack of faithfulness, taking the opposite side of the same coin, meaning somehow we who see some very bad ideas being presented here are not allowed to "think" that somehow this is wrong, or unfaithful unless we are their bishop. That is not how it works. Such a cloak cannot cover a multitude of sins. If something appears wrong, it should be reflected as such. If actions appear unfaithful or wrong, then someone should articulate it. It does not require being an immediate bishop to state as much, we cannot simply allow all kinds of criticisms of the church because we aren't "the bishop" of that individual.

[Senator]

If actions appear unfaithful or wrong, then someone should articulate it.

Ughh

[cjcampbell]

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?

I was under the impression that the latter was, in fact, the purpose of this board. There are plenty of discussion boards devoted to discussing the Church's faults. If this board is to become just one more of those, then it has become superfluous.

Perhaps it is time to start a new board that is genuinely interested in apologetic defense of the faith.

[Bsix]

I would observe...

As is the nature of any debate oriented message board, folks are banned, run off, or offended. In our case that may tend to impact non LDS critics and others of different faiths with question and challenges. There is a very real possibility that by default, we may be left mostly talking to ourselves more than other...and thus tend to more inward facing discussion. And...given the argumentative personalities that seem to haunt this message board...we end up debating intramural topics.

Six

[Jeff K.]

Ughh

Would the phrase "point it out" be better?

[mercyngrace]

I would observe...

As is the nature of any debate oriented message board, folks are banned, run off, or offended. In our case that may tend to impact non LDS critics and others of different faiths with question and challenges. There is a very real possibility that by default, we may be left mostly talking to ourselves more than other...and thus tend to more inward facing discussion. And...given the argumentative personalities that seem to haunt this message board...we end up debating intramural topics.

Six

[Jeff K.]

I would observe...

As is the nature of any debate oriented message board, folks are banned, run off, or offended. In our case that may tend to impact non LDS critics and others of different faiths with question and challenges. There is a very real possibility that by default, we may be left mostly talking to ourselves more than other...and thus tend to more inward facing discussion. And...given the argumentative personalities that seem to haunt this message board...we end up debating intramural topics.

Six

I have yet to see a board reduced to that level. I think it one of those theories like time travel, possible, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

[mercyngrace]

I have yet to see a board reduced to that level. I think it one of those theories like time travel, possible, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Well, we'll always have the grace v. works thread and the your-Jesus-ain't-my-Jesus thread...

edit: I guess it's time we let you in on the time travel secret...

[Jeff K.]

Wish the time travel secret were known.

[wenglund]

I find it ironic to see myself just about to complain about members who complain.

Fortunately, being able to humor myself in this way moves me to put things into perspective, and not put the weight of the world on the little things that happen here, and look at it all not so much negatively with displeasure, but rather positively as an opportunity to uplift.

Extensive experience has taught me that if people, including members like myself, gripe and complain abut the Church, its members, or others, it is likely that they are ill-at-ease and displeased with themselves, and their feeling bad about themselves too oft spills over onto others--typically those individuals and groups they are closest to, and in most contact with, and who they may hold most dear. I say this because it is, at times, the case with me.

I have learned (too slowly at times), that rather than returning complaint with complaint, thereby aggitating the bad self-feelings that engender the complaints to begin with, and chancing escallating the cycle of bad feelings and complaints, instead to look for and address the internal cause, rather than the external symptoms, which frequently means that when I am disturbed by what others may be doing or saying, to look inward for the cause and solution, and once that is addressed, then propose the same or similar cause and solution for others to consider as they may see fit.

To me, with rare exception, people have the best of intents, though because we are human our approach may not be the best way to achieve our best intents. In fact, quite frequently our approach inadvertantly engenders results that are the opposite from what we would hope. And, I think it good to remember the intents, lighten up, find reason to laugh a little, and to allow the humanity in myself and others. At least that is what works at times for me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

Wish the time travel secret were known.

You'll have to contact the UMW higher ups. That secret is beyond my pay grade.

[Jeff K.]

"United Mine Workers"?