How Critical Information Affects Members Of The Church

[cwald]

I'm not trying to prove the Church true. I'm addressing the specific accusations you've made against the Church.

There is a fundamental and unsubtle difference between the two.

Call For Reference- what part of Sunday School taught us to disregard or abandon reason for baseless and uniformed speculation and gossip? Lesson number, chapter, verse, and page, if you please.

Oh come on selek....give me break.

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[selek1]

Oh come on selek....give me break.

Answer the question.

You threw this nonsense out there: back it up.

[cwald]

So does this mean that if someone responds to your feeling that the Church has made a mistake with "no, I don't believe the Church has made that mistake" that you will not assume that this somehow proves your point about the Church or apologists in general never admitting it made a mistake when it has actually made one?...

No.

But I am interested in your opinion, and others.

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[Calm]

Answer the question.

You threw this nonsense out there: back it up.

It doesn't make sense to me either, cwald. You need to at least explain your reasoning if you want to continue the conversation or have your concerns seriously addressed.

[cwald]

Answer the question.

You threw this nonsense out there: back it up.

Okay. I concede. You, Selek must prove the church is true...and the hell with faith.

Wow.

Perhaps I should take back all my thanks for your responses..maybe you are not as good as an apologist as I thought.

[cwald]

It doesn't make sense to me either, cwald. You need to at least explain your reasoning if you want to continue the conversation or have your concerns seriously addressed.

Remind me again...what is it that I am supposed to be backing up? What accusations did I make?

[selek1]

Okay. I concede. You, Selek must prove the church is true...and the hell with faith.

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Implying that I did is a pathetic and dishonest attempt to change the subject.

You threw out a caricature of the LDS understanding about revelation: to whit, that revelation trumps reason, and that facts and evidence can be utterly discarded in the face of revelation.

You implied that said caricature was the official position of the Church.

It is incumbent upon you to support those allegations.

Perhaps I should take back all my thanks for your responses..maybe you are not as good as an apologist as I thought.

And perhaps I'm just not interested in playing empty rhetorical games. Edited June 25, 2012 by selek1

[cwald]

Selek...I told you two days ago I wasn't interested in your conversation. ...yet here we are.

Quit asking me questions and my opinion...and then getting all pissed about it when I answer.

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[selek1]

I told you two days ago I wasn't interested in your conversation. ...yet we are.

We're being trolled.

How many faithful Latter-day Saints have spent the better part of a week genuinely and patiently trying to discuss LDS thought, theology,and belief with cwald? Aside from myself, there's DBMormon, Calmoriah, Wade Englund, rpn, and several others.

In response to our genuine outreach, we get spate after spate of accusations, rhetorical dodges, and dishonest caricatures of LDS belief and principle.

Such responses are not indicative of someone acting in good faith.

Every single one of cwald's accusations against the Church has been shot down as either baseless, false, or predicated solely on his uninformed opinion.

Cwald has rejected every bit of evidence offered to him, and his only response has been "I'm just trying to understand what you really think."

When we tell him "what we really think", his only response is an airy wave of the hand and a new round of accusations.

Cwald has failed utterly to craft a single, cogent, thoughtful or factual response to the sincere and plain-spoken efforts of the Saints.

Again, this is not the behavior of someone acting in good faith.

I, for one, am done feeding the troll- nor can I in good conscience recommend that others continue to do so.

Edited June 25, 2012 by selek1

[cwald]

We're being trolled.

How many faithful Latter-day Saints have spent the better part of a week genuinely and patiently trying to discuss LDS thought, theology,and belief with cwald? Aside from myself, there's DBMormon, Calmoriah, Wade Englund, rpn, and several others.

In response to our genuine outreach, we get spate after spate of accusations, rhetorical dodges, and dishonest caricatures of LDS belief and principle.

Such responses are not indicative of someone acting in good faith.

Every single one of cwald's accusations against the Church has been shot down as either baseless, false, or predicated solely on his uninformed opinion.

Cwald has rejected every bit of evidence offered to him, and his only response has been "I'm just trying to understand what you really think."

When we tell him "what we really think", his only response is an airy wave of the hand and a new round of accusations.

Again, this is not the behavior of someone acting in good faith.

I, for one, am done feeding the troll- nor can I in good conscience recommend that others continue to do so.

You are a piece of work selek. I've been nothing but forthright why I am here. I asked you two days ago to move along...yet you keep coming back and baiting me into the conversatio. And then i get chastized by the moderators...

Perhaps there are others here who want to have the conversation. You don't need to get involved.

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[selek1]

You are a piece if work selek.

As I'm sure the Lord will admit- I'm a work in progress.

Among other things I need to learn patience. You have given me ample opportunity to demonstrate that virtue.

I've been nothing but forthright why I am here.

If that's so (and your actions suggest otherwise)- that's the only thing you've been forthright about.

I asked you two days ago to move along...yet you keep coming back and baiting me into the conversatio. And then i get chastized by the moderators...

I don't think that buys you as much leeway as you might hope.

Despite being given every reason to doubt you, I have tried to engage you in sincerity, patience, and good Christian charity. Whether or not I succeeded is up to others to judge.

Perhaps there are others here who want to have the conversation.

If so, that is their right, just as.I am within my rights to warn them that they are wasting their time and energy.

[CASteinman]

Btw- DB....I did go to church today....first time in months.

Wonderful! I hope you continue to attend!

[cwald]

We're being trolled.

How many faithful Latter-day Saints have spent the better part of a week genuinely and patiently trying to discuss LDS thought, theology,and belief with cwald? Aside from myself, there's DBMormon, Calmoriah, Wade Englund, rpn, and several others.

In response to our genuine outreach, we get spate after spate of accusations, rhetorical dodges, and dishonest caricatures of LDS belief and principle.

Such responses are not indicative of someone acting in good faith.

Every single one of cwald's accusations against the Church has been shot down as either baseless, false, or predicated solely on his uninformed opinion.

Cwald has rejected every bit of evidence offered to him, and his only response has been "I'm just trying to understand what you really

I told you...I went to church today...first time in a long time. You are such an ***.

[Storm Rider]

Selek, when a cup is full it is very difficult to fill it with anything else. When an individual has already made a judgment and is not really interested in an answer, the question becomes irrelevant. We have a few participants that already have made final judgments about the LDS Church and its members. Anything that conflicts with their position is disregarded for a host of reasons, primarily that it conflicts with their position and therefore is wrong.

At some point trolls should be starved. They are really only interested in hearing their own voice shout out their own opinion and cannot be bothered by facts.

[TAO]

What be the issue here?

[CASteinman]

The closest example to a genuine mistake on the part of the Church I can think of might be the excommunication of Helmuth Hübener (though most of the blame must be shouldered by Stake Branch President Arthur Zander).

The decision was reversed and all of Hübener blessings (and his good name) were restored in 1946.

Was this situation demonstrably a mistake? No. Though it might have been handled differently (and better), I'm not certain how.

One thing that is interesting about this case is that back in those days, the First Presidency reviewed all excommunications. I have heard that when this one hit their desk, they reversed it immediately. However, for whatever reasons (perhaps the war) the official reversal did not take place until 1946. But, based upon that, one could say that the Church did not make this mistake.

Also interestingly enough, there were 2 or 3 other Mormons caught with Helmuth. After the war, they moved to the Salt Lake Valley as did Arthur Zander. They all lived within miles of one another. I wonder how that was.

[Calm]

I told you...I went to church today...first time in a long time.

Which means what to you?

[cwald]

Which means what to you?

Really? Are you that cynical?

I supose with what you do here, and the "wolves and trolls" you deal with on a day to day basis, I should give you a break.

I don't get you folks...do you and this website represent the Mormon church and the mormon people?

I get treated like crap here. I got ran out of lds.net, and this site tells me that NOM and STAYLDS are apostate "wolves" websites... fine...where do I go now?

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[Calm]

Really? Are you that cynical?

It is a serious question. I am wondering what effect it had on you, what it made you think, etc.

If you use it as a reason for selek to take you seriously, I am assuming it has a serious effect on you or that something did that caused you to go and that is what I am interested in.

You shouldn't be so cynical as to interpret my question as a negative.

Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[cwald]

Selek has baited me in every thread...and then thrown me under the bus.

I'm not about facts and proof...i'm about feeling and listening to the spirir...I've been honest about that.

Do you really want my "opinion"? Or are you setting me up for another flogging?

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[Calm]

Selek has baited me in every thread...and then thrown me under the bus.

I'm not about facts and proof...i'm about feeling and listening to the spirir...I've been honest about that.

Do you really want my "opinion"? Or are you setting me up for another flogging?

Never mind.

[cwald]

Okay.

[why me]

The critics aren't the only people who fall victim to this. This problem also exists among faithful LDS people. I can name numerous individuals in my ward, circle of friends, and family members who still believe outdated or non canonized doctrine. I know people who believe in Adam-God, Cain is Bigfoot, Blacks are fence sitters in the pre mortal existence, Jesus was a polygamist, City of Enoch is under the polar ice caps, and etc. These faithful members will tell you these things with a straight face. They will say the church had to dial it back because the faithful couldn't handle the truth or weren't spiritually attuned to receive the "deep doctrine".

Didn't a recent popular BYU professor just get reprimanded for wrongly spouting false doctrine about the African race?

To me it's obvious that some critics and faithful LDS still to cling outdated quotes and LDS folklore.

IMHO opinion the church needs to do a better job of disavowing specific quotes and communicating what is real and what isn't. They think they are cleaning it up by leaving stuff out of lesson manuals and current books which is great, but as long as some of these concepts are not clearly identified and addressed head on, there will always be critics who point to past quotes and say "You believe this..." and there will always be faithful members who will cling to past quotes and say "This is true and is the deep doctrine of the church for those who have truly gained a testimony..."

I think that the problem is more problematic. The lds church is a lay church made up of members who give lessons and talks. And they all have their own opinions. How to stop people from having opinions? Also, lds members are always pulling out of their hat something this or that GA said. At times this GA lived 80 years ago as if this GA just said it. Yesterday at sunday school, I got a Bruce R. McConkie quote by the teacher from 1970.

Other churches do not have this problem. They go to the bible and not to a pastor or leader of their chruch that lived 100 years ago for quotations. The problem could be that the lds have too many leaders both past and present and these leaders have given talks throughout their lives, all recorded by someone. Too many possible quotations.

[why me]

Selek has baited me in every thread...and then thrown me under the bus.

I'm not about facts and proof...i'm about feeling and listening to the spirir...I've been honest about that.

Do you really want my "opinion"? Or are you setting me up for another flogging?

You are new here. With time, you skin will toughen and your mind will be made strong. This can be a tough place to be. But with time, your debating skills will be honed and you will spar well with the best of them. And your muscles will be etched in stone. Just call me angelo dundee.

I can take selek on and score good boxing points against him. No problem.

Edited June 25, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

This place is like an anatomy class. All new arrivals should expect being dissected.