Is MADB and anti-Mormon website?

[mercyngrace]

"United Mine Workers"?

A for effort!

[Lightbearer]

This First Presidency Message might be interesting in light of this thread:

(James E. Faust,

[mercyngrace]

Excellent talk by President Faust! Thanks Lightbearer. The one thing I would point out however is that we are to use the counsel we receive as a measuring stick for OUR OWN lives not a bludgeon for keeping others in line. Even God allows men to grow and learn through a messy process and at their own pace.

[Jeff K.]

If you disagree with them, their measuring stick is a bludgeon?

Or is the measuring stick, like words "hard" to their ears?

It is akin to saying "if you disagree with me when I digress from doctrine, you may not tell me I am digressing, since the measuring stick is for you, not for me. And "my measuring stick is of course for everyone....."

I don't quite buy the premise.

[mercyngrace]

If you disagree with them, their measuring stick is a bludgeon?

Or is the measuring stick, like words "hard" to their ears?

It is akin to saying "if you disagree with me when I digress from doctrine, you may not tell me I am digressing, since the measuring stick is for you, not for me. And "my measuring stick is of course for everyone....."

I don't quite buy the premise.

Was I that unclear?

The truth is the measuring stick for all of us. You judge yourself by it. I judge myself by it. But depending on my understanding and the intent of my heart, I may not see it in the same light as you do. You, not knowing my inner struggles, my past experiences, or my current level of progression are not equipped to decide if I am in apostasy. Thankfully, the One who will judge knows me much better than you do ;-)

(and those are generic "me" and "you" because everyone on the board knows that I am seriously righteous and you my wandering friend, need to be repeatedly brought back to the fold ;-)

[Ceeboo]

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

Indeed !!!!

As usual, 6 has it right again.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Senator]

Would the phrase "point it out" be better?

No, the reservation of your subjective judgments on others' personal faithfulness, testimony, spirituality, and internal motives would be best.

[Jeff K.]

No, the reservation of your subjective judgments on others' personal faithfulness, testimony, spirituality, and internal motives would be best.

And yet, oh my, here you are judging my judgement, where does it all end.

When you display something publically, you pretty much ask for opinion, that opinion includes questions of faithfulness to the doctrine. I don't know where you get "personal faithfulness" from since I assume everyone is faithful to their personal beliefs, even when they hide their real feelings from their home wards. But there is a jarring disconnect with reality when someone undermines the church, members, doctrine, or whatever you will, and yet, expect some would say they are "personally faithful".

Too many people use the "don't judge unless your his bishop" as a shield for all kinds of sins they don't want to explain. Again, I see many anti Mormons rally around those people, it shows whose side they are more closely aligned. Those self same groups have never, to my knowledge rallied around a accepted doctrinal point of view.

[Jeff K.]

Indeed !!!!

As usual, 6 has it right again.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Not quite ceebo, like a said, a theory that has never been achieved. Like time travel.

[Jeff K.]

Was I that unclear?

The truth is the measuring stick for all of us. You judge yourself by it. I judge myself by it. But depending on my understanding and the intent of my heart, I may not see it in the same light as you do. You, not knowing my inner struggles, my past experiences, or my current level of progression are not equipped to decide if I am in apostasy. Thankfully, the One who will judge knows me much better than you do ;-)

(and those are generic "me" and "you" because everyone on the board knows that I am seriously righteous and you my wandering friend, need to be repeatedly brought back to the fold ;-)

You see a man running off a cliff, its his own business? Maybe.

If I see a man encouraging others to run off the same cliff, I will definately say something.

[mercyngrace]

You see a man running off a cliff, its his own business? Maybe.

If I see a man encouraging others to run off the same cliff, I will definately say something.

But sometimes, the way it comes across on this board is:

You see a man running off a cliff, you punch him and ask him what the @*#$ he's thinking!

And I prefer:

You see a man running off a cliff, you call to him lovingly with arms outstretched and give him a reason to back away from the ledge ;-)

[Lightbearer]

Excellent talk by President Faust! Thanks Lightbearer. The one thing I would point out however is that we are to use the counsel we receive as a measuring stick for OUR OWN lives not a bludgeon for keeping others in line. Even God allows men to grow and learn through a messy process and at their own pace.

That is why I quoted the talk and kept my comments to a minimum lest any should think I was trying to bludgeon them into submission. Also (since this was a First Presidency message in the Ensign) if I were the said critic's home teacher I might be constrained to try to spilt "hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle." But that is about as close to bludgeoning as I would get.

[Ceeboo]

And...given the argumentative personalities that seem to haunt this message board...we end up debating intramural topics.

Six

Perhaps this is a good time to start the debate of " Time travel "????

What do you think Jeff ?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[mercyngrace]

That is why I quoted the talk and kept my comments to a minimum lest any should think I was trying to bludgeon them into submission. Also (since this was a First Presidency message in the Ensign) if I were the said critic's home teacher I might be constrained to try to spilt "hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle." But that is about as close to bludgeoning as I would get.

Which is why I can honestly say without any hesitation that I appreciate your comments and presence on this board ;-)

[Jeff K.]

But sometimes, the way it comes across on this board is:

You see a man running off a cliff, you punch him and ask him what the @*#$ he's thinking!

And I prefer:

You see a man running off a cliff, you call to him lovingly with arms outstretched and give him a reason to back away from the ledge ;-)

We can all wrap the package with a prettier bow, I agree. But sometimes I do wonder "what the #%@$ is he thinking?" And they guy continues to say "its ok"...

[Senator]

And yet, oh my, here you are judging my judgement, where does it all end.

Whatever JeffK.

Your continued habit of personalizing the discussions is against board rules. Yet you keep doing it.

And why I respond to it, I'll never know!

[Jeff K.]

Perhaps this is a good time to start the debate of " Time travel "????

What do you think Jeff ?

Peace,

Ceeboo

Well, I don't see time as immutable (of course neither do theoretical physicists), to it is possible, just (as they say in quantum physics) highly unlikely.

[wenglund]

But sometimes, the way it comes across on this board is:

You see a man running off a cliff, you punch him and ask him what the @*#$ he's thinking!

And I prefer:

You see a man running off a cliff, you call to him lovingly with arms outstretched and give him a reason to back away from the ledge ;-)

I don't know if that accuratly reflects Jeff's style, but as a former teacher and behavioralist, I have come to learn that because of the diversity of humankind, some approaches work well with some people in some situations, but not so well with other people in other situations. Certain strong-willed men won't break stride at the sight of lovingly outstretched arms as they speed on their way unwittingly off the edge of a cliff, but require a rather blunt wake-up call.

I believe God understands this. That is why he provides children with both a mother and father, with differing communication and disciplinary styles, one to kiss the skinned knee and lovingly say "there there", and another to at some point matter-of-factly say, "okay..that's enough crying, gird up your loins and get back to running".

We find this diversity of approach throughout the scriptures in the ways that God has dealt with his adult people. At times he motivates out of love and reward, and at other times he motivates out of fear and punishment.

Just saying...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Whatever JeffK.

Your continued habit of personalizing the discussions is against board rules. Yet you keep doing it.

And why I respond to it, I'll never know!

If someone doesn't like your opinion, they will always say it personalized since they deem your opinion about them.

[mercyngrace]

I don't know if that accuratly reflects Jeff's style, but as a former teacher and behavioralist, I have come to learn that because of the diversity of humankind, some approaches work well with some people in some situations, but not so well with other people in other situations. Certain strong-willed men won't break stride at the sight of lovingly outstretched arms as they speed on their way unwittingly off the edge of a cliff, but require a rather blunt wake-up call.

I believe God understands this. That is why he provides children with both a mother and father, with differing communication and disciplinary styles, one to kiss the skinned knee and lovingly say "there there", and another to at some point matter-of-factly say, "okay..that's enough crying, gird up your loins and get back to running".

We find this diversity of approach throughout the scriptures in the ways that God has dealt with his adult people. At times he motivates out of love and reward, and at other times he motivates out of fear and punishment.

Just saying...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I didn't say that was Jeff's style, we were speaking in general terms, Wade. At least, I thought we were.

So if you believe fear and punishment are good motivators, the question becomes - Whose hearts have been changed on this board by that approach? Have the threads become more or less contentious? More or less Christlike? Who has felt closer to the Spirit as a result of being called an apostate?

Just saying... ;-)

MnG

[wenglund]

I didn't say that was Jeff's style, we were speaking in general terms, Wade. At least, I thought we were.

I thought you used the specifying pronoun "you" in response to Jeff's post, rather than the general "we" or "us". Am I wrong?

So if you believe fear and punishment are good motivators, the question becomes - Whose hearts have been changed on this board by that approach? Have the threads become more or less contentious? More or less Christlike? Who has felt closer to the Spirit as a result of being called an apostate?

Just saying... ;-) MnG

The answers to those questions are unavoidably in the eye of the beholder. But, if you doubt that fear and punishment are good motivators, then why do you suppose God has frequently employed them?

Could it be that for some people, at some times, and in some situations, such things are what may work best in bring them to Christ and enabling them to become more like Christ?

And speaking of Christ-like, was the Savior wrong to not have extended his loving arms to entice the money changers out of the temple, but instead went after them with wip and overtuning their tables and driving them out (see [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:12

[mercyngrace]

I thought you used the specifying pronoun "you" in response to Jeff's post, rather than the general "we" or "us". Am I wrong?

I was using the same style Jeff did. He said "You see a man running off a cliff..." I presumed he was speaking generically and responded with the same format.

The answers to those questions are unavoidably in the eye of the beholder. But, if you doubt that fear and punishment are good motivators, then why do you suppose God has frequently employed them?

Could it be that for some people, at some times, and in some situations, such things are what may work best in bring them to Christ and enabling them to become more like Christ?

And speaking of Christ-like, was the Savior wrong to not have extended his loving arms to entice the money changers out of the temple, but instead went after them with wip and overtuning their tables and driving them out (see [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:12

[Bsix]

Funny...it seems to me that the logic to justify the criticism of the Church by self-declared loyalists on this message board does not seem too distant from the reasons non-LDS critics give for speaking against the Church.

They want to speak truth, they want to correct the Church in the errors of its ways, they want to help those who feel oppressed by the Church, they want to speak against institutional and cultural oppression and intolerance.

Obviously, the topics and vitrol with which in-house critics speak and external critics speak are quite different...but it does seem that we are speaking in degrees.

Six

[mercyngrace]

Funny...it seems to me that the logic to justify the criticism of the Church by self-declared loyalists on this message board does not seem too distant from the reasons non-LDS critics give for speaking against the Church.

They want to speak truth, they want to correct the Church in the errors of its ways, they want to help those who feel oppressed by the Church, they want to speak against institutional and cultural oppression and intolerance.

Obviously, the topics and vitrol with which in-house critics speak and external critics speak are quite different...but it does seem that we are speaking in degrees.

Six

Bsix, since you seem to be in the know, can you post a list of qualifications for being an acceptable member? Apparently, daily scripture study, unceasing prayer, regular fasting, fulfilling callings, regular temple and church attendance, service, being humble enough to know I'm not always right, seeking the Spirit, trying to be Christ-like and obeying the prophet isn't enough.

Dang it! I knew not keeping a journal regularly was going to come back to haunt me...

MnG

O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

[Senator]

Funny...it seems to me that the logic to justify the criticism of the Church by self-declared loyalists on this message board does not seem too distant from the reasons non-LDS critics give for speaking against the Church.

They want to speak truth, they want to correct the Church in the errors of its ways, they want to help those who feel oppressed by the Church, they want to speak against institutional and cultural oppression and intolerance.

Obviously, the topics and vitrol with which in-house critics speak and external critics speak are quite different...but it does seem that we are speaking in degrees.

Six

Just out of curiosity, how does everyone here regard Hugh Nibley?