I Am A Bottomless Sinkhole Of Corruption

[mercyngrace]

The idea of defending the church is something that some just can't understand. Also, the posts of libs and mercyngrace seem a little contrived in attempting to explain their own station with the lds church. In the name mercyngrace, I see no mercy toward Daniel and the attacks that he has experienced. And that is my point also with mercyngrace. It is one thing to post all is love, one love, brotherhood of man and work in progress etc. But quite another to put such phrases and words into practice.

WS,

What would be an indication that I am being gracious and merciful to Dan? Does he need mercy from me? Grace from me? Does he not have a platform, right here in which he can post his own defense?

How would my stepping into a situation about which I know nothing be either merciful or gracious.

You might have a point if I were defending nasty attacks on Dan but I haven't.

You aren't asking me to treat all parties equally. I am currently doing so. You are asking me to choose who I'm going to be charitable toward based on information I have no knowledge of. In this case, the most charitable thing I can do is refuse to perpetrate hatred, decline to disseminate malicious comments, and avoid taking upon myself the role of judge in anyone's online affairs.

Done.

[KevinG]

and avoid taking upon myself the role of judge in anyone's online affairs.

Does this courtesy extend to Why Me?

[mercyngrace]

Does this courtesy extend to Why Me?

I invite you to scroll back through the thread and see where this conversation began, Kevin.

I haven't gone digging through WM's old posts, looking for reasons to hold him to some arbitrary standard. He decided, because of a few friendly posts (among them, a post applauding Calmoriah and Nemesis) on the other board, that suddenly it is my responsibility to take up arms.

So while the two of you are busy ganging up on me, just consider, how well that reflects on this board, the church, and Dan Peterson - that two priesthood holders are willing to attack a stay at home mom who's never met or even spoken to Dan Peterson for what they consider the grand sin of omission in not defending him in an argument about which she knows nothing.

Yep. That's honorable right there.

Edited May 16, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Avatar4321]

Daniel or Xander / Kevin? Dan is treated very badly on a number of sites...I have even done it and apologized. Kevin never will, he lives near me and i know him through a mutual friend. He is obsessed with his own views and never passes up a chance to criticize that which he once defended very well.

Sometimes we can be our own worst enemy. I remember Kevin back when he was still in the faith. I wish he would come back. But like I said, we can be our own worst enemies. We just all need to make sure we remain humble and not beyond correction, because we all have weaknesses we need to deal with.

[why me]

So while the two of you are busy ganging up on me, just consider, how well that reflects on this board, the church, and Dan Peterson - that two priesthood holders are willing to attack a stay at home mom who's never met or even spoken to Dan Peterson for what they consider the grand sin of omission in not defending him in an argument about which she knows nothing.

Now mercyngrace, here we are again equating me taking you to task with having a bad reflection on the board, church and dan. Really, now. How often must I see such kind of posts. And I am certainly not ganging up on you. However, if you wish to see a gang up, you just need to read the Dan threads over on the other board usually started by a particular poster. Then, you will understand what a gang up is.

[Avatar4321]

It seems to be an attack thread.

That's the problem with defending oneself. It can be interpreted as an attack.

[why me]

It is amazing just how many times lately that when a person defends the lds church and has a debate with someone, suddenly, the defender is giving a bad example for the board and for the church. And the critic? Well, he or she gets a free ride. However, can we not also write that when critics show poor behavior and attack individuals for defending the lds church, that they are showing a bad example for people who wish to leave the faith?

Edited May 16, 2012 by why me

[KevinG]

I invite you to scroll back through the thread and see where this conversation began, Kevin.

I haven't gone digging through WM's old posts, looking for reasons to hold him to some arbitrary standard. He decided, because of a few friendly posts (among them, a post applauding Calmoriah and Nemesis) on the other board, that suddenly it is my responsibility to take up arms.

So while the two of you are busy ganging up on me, just consider, how well that reflects on this board, the church, and Dan Peterson - that two priesthood holders are willing to attack a stay at home mom who's never met or even spoken to Dan Peterson for what they consider the grand sin of omission in not defending him in an argument about which she knows nothing.

Yep. That's honorable right there.

Attack? Sin of omission? Take up arms?

Slow down please. I did not attack or accuse you of anything. You are arguing from extremes.

Edited May 16, 2012 by KevinG

[why me]

That's the problem with defending oneself. It can be interpreted as an attack.

Especially by a critic. Critics seem to find mercy and grace toward one another. It is also perfectly okay to gang up on a faithful member, defend of the lds faith, or apologist. However, when the faithful member, defender of the lds faith or apologist go on the offensive, well, they are not living the gospel or by their defense, they are hurting the lds church.

In other words, the faitful, the defender and the apologist must turn the other cheek.

[Log]

Actually, this may be the thread for this.

Does defending the Kingdom of God imply defending its members?

[KevinG]

Especially by a critic. Critics seem to find mercy and grace toward one another. It is also perfectly okay to gang up on a faithful member, defend of the lds faith, or apologist. However, when the faithful member, defender of the lds faith or apologist go on the offensive, well, they are not living the gospel or by their defense, they are hurting the lds church.

In other words, the faitful, the defender and the apologist must turn the other cheek.

That is the troubling double standard and one critics use quite frequently. I have no beef with mercyngrace other than her eagerness to call those who defend their faith and brethren to repentance while seemingly ignoring more vile examples of hatred to slide in an effort not to offend those who perpetrate them.

[KevinG]

Actually, this may be the thread for this.

Does defending the Kingdom of God imply defending its members?

I think so. It also includes standing up for the truth when others are teaching lies. I often engage in apologetics for the benefit of the innocent third party listening in.

I have been rash at times (and apologized) but to characterize my defenses as attacks is over the top.

I liked what Elder Uchdorf has to say about a higher standard. I have considered my actions in light of it. However, I would not use a general conference quote to scold others whose behavior I felt was not up to my highest standard. In fact I think it is a bad form to lecture others about behavior instead of applying the counsel to themselves.

That is kind of a classic passive aggressive gotcha: "What you disagree with me? What if I told you that quote was from the Apostle ____)

Quotes can be used in and out of context. Lessons can be likened unto ourselves or used to lecture others.

Edited May 16, 2012 by KevinG

[mercyngrace]

It is amazing just how many times lately that when a person defends the lds church and has a debate with someone, suddenly, the defender is giving a bad example for the board and for the church. And the critic? Well, he or she gets a free ride. However, can we not also write that when critics show poor behavior and attack individuals for defending the lds church, that they are showing a bad example for people who wish to leave the faith?

Why Me,

You are the one who made my posting habits about Dan.

What's good for the goose...

[mercyngrace]

That is the troubling double standard and one critics use quite frequently. I have no beef with mercyngrace other than her eagerness to call those who defend their faith and brethren to repentance while seemingly ignoring more vile examples of hatred to slide in an effort not to offend those who perpetrate them.

Speaking of mind reading... eagerness?

This is utter nonsense, Kevin. Nemesis long ago explained his rationale for refusing to allow a double standard and I've tried diligently to meet his expectation. I've never held Dan to any standard. He and I have never interacted. I did have a problem with Will S, who made an exceptionally nasty remark about Emma Smith, and I've had run ins with Pahoran but they've typically been about differences in how we see the gospel, except of course, when he accused me of being a sock puppet recently.

So, if it seems like I have higher expectations of active LDS, and that comes through in my posts inadvertently, trust me - the problem is solved.

My expectations are plummeting as we speak.

[CASteinman]

Does defending the Kingdom of God imply defending its members?

Yes. Absolutely. If by "defending" the members you mean helping them develop stronger insights into the gospel, increase testimony and faith and resist temptations strewn around by anti-Christs and similar enemies.

I do not consider it to be "defending" a member to justify someone's actions that may be incorrect or out of harmony. And it is possible that when you say "defending its members" that is what you are thinking of.

[CASteinman]

My expectations are plummeting as we speak.

Have Faith. Be of Good Cheer. Even though there are folk like me and Pahoran and so on, the Gospel is True, God is in His Throne, Jesus grants Mercy and Justice and the plan unfolds as it should. We can be optimistic.

[mercyngrace]

Have Faith. Be of Good Cheer. Even though there are folk like me and Pahoran and so on, the Gospel is True, God is in His Throne, Jesus grants Mercy and Justice and the plan unfolds as it should. We can be optimistic.

Thank you CASteinman, I needed that. Consider this my reciprocation.

[KevinG]

Speaking of mind reading... eagerness?

This is utter nonsense, Kevin. Nemesis long ago explained his rationale for refusing to allow a double standard and I've tried diligently to meet his expectation. I've never held Dan to any standard. He and I have never interacted. I did have a problem with Will S, who made an exceptionally nasty remark about Emma Smith, and I've had run ins with Pahoran but they've typically been about differences in how we see the gospel, except of course, when he accused me of being a sock puppet recently.

So, if it seems like I have higher expectations of active LDS, and that comes through in my posts inadvertently, trust me - the problem is solved.

Excuse me - substitute pattern (or any other word of your choice) for eagerness. I did not mean to impune you with implying your emotional state was excited. Still its nicer than accusations that I'm ganging up on a stay at home mom and attacking her.

My expectations are plummeting as we speak.

...and it is exactly this kind of snide backhanded remark that makes me wonder if you are taking your own counsel to keep high standards in a disagreement with others.

But I will refrain from lecturing you on your style any further. Lest I be accused of ganging up on innocents.

[Log]

Yes. Absolutely. If by "defending" the members you mean helping them develop stronger insights into the gospel, increase testimony and faith and resist temptations strewn around by anti-Christs and similar enemies.

But not, let's say, to uphold their honor when it is besmirched, or counter the calumny of their enemies?

I do not consider it to be "defending" a member to justify someone's actions that may be incorrect or out of harmony. And it is possible that when you say "defending its members" that is what you are thinking of.

Anything, I suppose, is possible. Except that. As the world's leading expert on the mind of Log, I can assure you that such was not even a consideration.

[CASteinman]

But not, let's say, to uphold their honor when it is besmirched, or counter the calumny of their enemies?

Interesting question. No, I am not sure that is quite the same thing as defending the Kingdom of God, unless, by virtue of these attacks, that individual is made weak in the Faith.

But I would say it is the same thing as being loyal and supportive to a Brother or Sister in the Gospel and -- even more -- it is the presentation of a stern, resolute face and a sound warning to the wolves who seek the Spiritual Lives of the lambs in the Flock. And that's a sort of defense of the Kingdom.

Anything, I suppose, is possible. Except that. As the world's leading expert on the mind of Log, I can assure you that such was not even a consideration.

I do not need any papers or testimonials to believe that you are the world's foremost expert on what you meant! I also did not mean to suggest that I actually thought that was what you meant -- only that it was possibly what you were thinking. I did not know.

[Log]

Interesting question. No, I am not sure that is quite the same thing as defending the Kingdom of God, unless, by virtue of these attacks, that individual is made weak in the Faith.

Ah, but what if, by virtue of those attacks on this hypothetical sister - let's call her Danielle Rockson, for example - the Church is made to appear bad, or weak, and by that appearance weakens or alienates others?

But I would say it is the same thing as being loyal and supportive to a Brother or Sister in the Gospel and -- even more -- it is the presentation of a stern, resolute face and a sound warning to the wolves who seek the Spiritual Lives of the lambs in the Flock. And that's a sort of defense of the Kingdom.

That's where I'm going with this.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Log

[KevinG]

I imagine there are those who are laughing themselves silly over our internal debate on how zealous our defense of fellow Saints should be. I will not bow to being insulting to others or going out of my way to offend. I agree with Elder Uchdorf's admonition - we don't need to be nasty.

On the other hand we should not lie down and allow lies and calumny to go unanswered. Silence in the face of bullying encourages the outrageous behavior to continue.

[mercyngrace]

I liked what Elder Uchdorf has to say about a higher standard. I have considered my actions in light of it. However, I would not use a general conference quote to scold others whose behavior I felt was not up to my highest standard. In fact I think it is a bad form to lecture others about behavior instead of applying the counsel to themselves.

That is kind of a classic passive aggressive gotcha: "What you disagree with me? What if I told you that quote was from the Apostle ____)

Quotes can be used in and out of context. Lessons can be likened unto ourselves or used to lecture others.

Kevin,

If this is why you integrated yourself into the discussion, I implore you to return to the post to which you are referring. I did not post that quote to set a standard for anyone else. I explicitly state "Here's how I see things:" in front of the quote. That was the written indicator that I was going to share my opinion about my behavior online, as my online behavior was the concern of Why Me's post.

I was attempting to explain MY standard for MYSELF in light of Why Me's public declaration that he would be monitoring my online behavior, an invitation which still stands. Furthermore, He didn't even know it came from a general authority.

Perhaps this is the genesis of your pointed remarks, I don't know.

As it is, I am sorry for anything that I said which offended you including my uncharitable description of you as ganging up, etc. And I am thankful you edited your comment because it helps me see where I need to write my thoughts more clearly so as not to offend or add to the already difficult experience of trying to communicate online.

Edited May 17, 2012 by mercyngrace

[CASteinman]

let's call her Danielle Rockson, for example

Yeah... that sounds pretty hypothetical. Not specific at all.

This made me think about how the Lord works with the Children of Men throughout history. He uses people... a variety of people in different circumstances. I think about some of the rather interesting characters -- Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Lehi, Nephi, Isaiah, Abinadai, Alma, Samuel, Peter, Paul, Mormon, Moroni, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others.

None of them was perfect. It seems that if you look carefully, none of them was spared some vicious attacks by the enemies of the Kingdom of God. We know, from the Life of Christ, that even a perfect sinless person can be attacked. How much more so and also how much more (seemingly) legitimately for these less than perfect people.

Yet though they may not be quite up to the standards of Christ, they are the Lord's Anointed. Though they may err in ways that give "critics" a ledge to stand on, nevertheless we should stand with them. God bless them and all those who support them and comfort them. And may God grant that those enemies have the same punishments upon themselves that they wished for God's prophets and people. May their hopes be cut off and their posterity swept away from them so in the last day they stand alone and friendless before the bar of the God whose followers they persecuted.

[Log]

I guess my question is "should I feel obligated to go over to the Great and Spacious and defend my brothers and sisters from the mocking and derision coming therefrom, or shall I heed Lehi's warning - 'for as many as heeded [the scorners and mockers in the G&S] fell away'?"

Personally, I find MDB to be too toxic even to read, much less participate in.

And I completely agree that the blessings of the Lord ought to be poured out upon the heads of his righteous servants, be they GAs, scholars, or the average Joe.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Log