Lamanite Identities

[Tacenda]

I can fully understand that admonitions to read church literature come from the pulpit. I can recall it being said many times. In my sphere of experience I never encountered anyone saying to only read church literature but I can imagine that someone, sometime has said such. And I know why. Had I not, purely by chance, with nothing guiding me other than boredom, while taking a break from writing my thesis, picked up a certain volume in the university library, I might still be an active, believing member of the church.

When I first wrote a comment to someone's post here, on MDDB, I was shouted at, capital letters to "PROVE IT". I'm still as opinionated as always but I usually couch my words carefully.

Thanks for this comment. I actually thought I must be going crazy when Scott said this never happened to him in all his years of being a member. I do think I should be more specific when I post though. There wasn't a policing of what we should be reading etc. It was just a feeling I got during church lessons, that we should stay clear of non LDS publications or anti material regarding history.

Edit to add...I remember my first experience with anti material was had at a local library. I looked into the book and felt this strange dark feeling the minute it said anything negative about JS etc. I didn't check it out or anything just remember putting it back immediately. I think I was definitely conditioned not to look at any church leader in any negativity what so ever.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

In my sphere of experience I never encountered anyone saying to only read church literature but I can imagine that someone, sometime has said such.

And thus, your "sphere of experience" contradicts Tacenda's undocumented assertion as well.

The "I wouldn't put it past 'em" argument is really quite a weak one.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for this comment. I actually thought I must be going crazy when Scott said this never happened to him in all his years of being a member.

Did you not grasp the fact that bcuzbcuz admitted it has never happened to him either?

Edited November 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Did you not grasp the fact that bcuzbcuz admitted it has never happened to him either?

I was referring to this line in his post, quote: "I can fully understand that admonitions to read church literature come from the pulpit. I can recall it being said many times." Edited November 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

I was referring to this line in his post, quote: "I can fully understand that admonitions to read church literature come from the pulpit. I can recall it being said many times."

Nobody's disputing that there are frequent admonitions to read Church literature. That's a rather unremarkable observation.

What you asserted, if I understand correctly, is that you've been told to read only "Church-approved" literature.

[volgadon]

I was referring to this line in his post, quote: "I can fully understand that admonitions to read church literature come from the pulpit. I can recall it being said many times."

Admonitions to read church literature. Are you saying the church doesn't encourage that? It is not the same as saying never read something that isn't church literature.

Look at the rest of his comments. " In my sphere of experience I never encountered anyone saying to only read church literature but I can imagine that someone, sometime has said such."

[Tacenda]

Nobody's disputing that there are frequent admonitions to read Church literature. That's a rather unremarkable observation.

What you asserted, if I understand correctly, is that you've been told to read only "Church-approved" literature.

You weren't in the meetings I attended or experienced the comments on anti's in class. So how do you know the perceptions one might perceive from them. I tried to explain it better with the experience of reading or even looking at a book that was not faith promoting. As I said before I shouldn't have put forth the idea that the church polices what we as LDS read and officially apologise for it.

[Scott Lloyd]

You weren't in the meetings I attended or experienced the comments on anti's in class. So how do you know the perceptions one might perceive from them.

Your comment is what it is, anecdotal information.

What is being called into question here is whether such a thing is typical or pervasive in the Church. Apparently you have now backed away from that notion.

[Tacenda]

Your comment is what it is, anecdotal information.

What is being called into question here is whether such a thing is typical or pervasive in the Church. Apparently you have now backed away from that notion.

It is all from personal experience. If I'd have been raised on the truer history of the church, maybe my faith would not have taken a nose dive. Thus the reason for making a comment in the first place. Albeit maybe it was anecdotal. And I've jumped on some bandwagons out there of disgruntled members that have gone through the same thing. I think the church will put more history out there maybe at a slow pace, but it's got to be done for the younger generation. Edited November 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[bcuzbcuz]

Your comment is what it is, anecdotal information.

What is being called into question here is whether such a thing is typical or pervasive in the Church. Apparently you have now backed away from that notion.

Most comments here are anecdotal. It's the nature of the game. The part I don't get is the aggressiveness that you display. You even pull forth quotes from me to reinforce your, also anecdotal, opinion. Gloating is so unbecoming.

[Scott Lloyd]

Most comments here are anecdotal. It's the nature of the game.

I refer you to the Board Guidelines, which include on the list of behavior that is disallowed here:

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

The reason for this is clear to me, that being the inherent injustice of making a criticism or accusation without being able to substantiate it properly.

The part I don't get is the aggressiveness that you display. You even pull forth quotes from me to reinforce your, also anecdotal, opinion.

I reject the criticism that I have been overly aggressive. My "anecdotal information" was intended to demonstrate that anecdotes, in and of themselves, don't go very far in terms of documentation or substantiation. They can most always be contradicted by another anecdote.

But if you feel strongly that I have been in any way uncivil, I refer you to the "Report" function link at the bottom of each post. We can let the moderators adjudicate this matter.

Gloating is so unbecoming.

I reject the accusation of gloating and submit that what is unbecoming is making a public criticism or accusation without having the wherewithal to back it up.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Did you not grasp the fact that bcuzbcuz admitted it has never happened to him either?

Well I have only been a member 32 years so what do I know- but I have never heard it either.

Silly me, I actually believe these things:

D&C 88:118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

Silly me, I thought that meant that we should seek learning because not everyone has faith- in other words, when one has a question one should "study it out in your mind" before praying about it.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

And dang it, I thought that said that we should seek out learning. Gosh did I get it wrong. Now somebody tells me on the internet I was wrong all these years.

Gosh, what will I do now that I have to stop all that?

[Kemara]

Tacenda, while you have answered one CFR by retracting the statement you still have another outstanding CFR, please provide the references or withdraw the statement.

[mfbukowski]

It is all from personal experience. If I'd have been raised on the truer history of the church, maybe my faith would not have taken a nose dive. Thus the reason for making a comment in the first place. Albeit maybe it was anecdotal. And I've jumped on some bandwagons out there of disgruntled members that have gone through the same thing. I think the church will put more history out there maybe at a slow pace, but it's got to be done for the younger generation.

It must be nice to blame all your problems on what you thought you were told in church.

[Kemara]

You even pull forth quotes from me to reinforce your, also anecdotal, opinion.

The horror, the injustice, the outrage at having your words quoted on a discussion board.

[Tacenda]

It must be nice to blame all your problems on what you thought you were told in church.

I don't blame all my problems on that. I know I need to have the strength to withstand and understand the actions of others. I know it, and am not doing as you suggested.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, while you have answered one CFR by retracting the statement you still have another outstanding CFR, please provide the references or withdraw the statement.

Kemara would you please remind of it? Edited November 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[Kemara]

Kemara would you please remind of it?

I issued two CFR's:

My request was a formal Call for References that "they" [the church] say we should only read church approved materials.

You have withdrawn this comment.

This is a formal Call for References that we are not allowed to use a site no matter how true unless its from the curch or faithful church memebers etc, if its concerning church history etc.

This CFR has not been answered.

There is also an outstanding CFR from Calmoriah to the following statement:

Well anytime you don't peruse the LDS.org sight for information it is questionable by people in the church for authenticity.

[Tacenda]

I issued two CFR's:

You have withdrawn this comment.

This CFR has not been answered.

There is also an outstanding CFR from Calmoriah to the following statement:

This is the board rule below:

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

I'm not refusing the CFR's, I just don't know how to. I tried to look at my past posts for when I've used websites that apparently were anti, but was unaware of the extant and got slammed for it. And couldn't find due too it being too labor intensive to go back through several months of them. And for Cal's CFR it is primarily by experience therefore making it difficult to provide a reference of being told or by suggestion to only refer to the LDS.org site for the info because it is the most authoriative, not on this board but in my communal experiences.

Hope this helps, now can we put it to rest or are you going to badger or pester me? Which would be against the rules on this board.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[Kemara]

I'm not refusing the CFR's, I just don't know how to. I tried to look at my past posts for when I've used websites that apparently were anti, but was unaware of the extant and got slammed for it.

I do not believe your personal experience on this board constitutes an appropriate reference. Your statement went to the fact of “permission” or “policy” in that LDS are not "allowed" to use particular web sites concerning church history. The nature of your statement requires references from the entity which allegedly has the ability to “disallow” this activity.

If you cannot or will not provide a reference you need to retract the statement.

And couldn't find due too it being too labor intensive to go back through several months of them.

Even if your personal experience did constitute an appropriate reference the fact that you are claiming it is too much of a labor intensive activity to provide those references does indeed constitute a refusal.

If you cannot or will not provide a reference you need to retract the statement.

And for Cal's CFR it is primarily by experience therefore making it difficult to provide a reference of being told or by suggestion to only refer to the LDS.org site for the info because it is the most authoriative, not on this board but in my communal experiences.

If you cannot or will not provide a reference you need to retract the statement.

Hope this helps, now can we put it to rest or are you going to badger or pester me? Which would be against the rules on this board.

Actually, what is against the rules of the board is:

Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given

You have not given the references. Please provide them or retract the statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is the board rule below:

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

I'm not refusing the CFR's, I just don't know how to. I tried to look at my past posts for when I've used websites that apparently were anti, but was unaware of the extant and got slammed for it. And couldn't find due too it being too labor intensive to go back through several months of them. And for Cal's CFR it is primarily by experience therefore making it difficult to provide a reference of being told or by suggestion to only refer to the LDS.org site for the info because it is the most authoriative, not on this board but in my communal experiences.

Hope this helps, now can we put it to rest or are you going to badger or pester me? Which would be against the rules on this board.

Calling into question the credibility of a source — such as many anti-Mormon websites — or weighing the relative credibility of one source over another is not the same thing as mandating that one must not consult anything but "Church-approved" sources.

[bcuzbcuz]

The horror, the injustice, the outrage at having your words quoted on a discussion board.

Yeah, it makes me feel all warm inside.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, it makes me feel all warm inside.

Nothing makes me warmer than listining to Pantera and reading this thread. 5 Minuets alone.

[bcuzbcuz]

I refer you to the Board Guidelines, which include on the list of behavior that is disallowed here:

The reason for this is clear to me, that being the inherent injustice of making a criticism or accusation without being able to substantiate it properly.

I reject the criticism that I have been overly aggressive. My "anecdotal information" was intended to demonstrate that anecdotes, in and of themselves, don't go very far in terms of documentation or substantiation. They can most always be contradicted by another anecdote.

But if you feel strongly that I have been in any way uncivil, I refer you to the "Report" function link at the bottom of each post. We can let the moderators adjudicate this matter.

I reject the accusation of gloating and submit that what is unbecoming is making a public criticism or accusation without having the wherewithal to back it up.

There's always the Report button.

[bcuzbcuz]

I do not believe your personal experience on this board constitutes an appropriate reference. Your statement went to the fact of “permission” or “policy” in that LDS are not "allowed" to use particular web sites concerning church history. The nature of your statement requires references from the entity which allegedly has the ability to “disallow” this activity.

If you cannot or will not provide a reference you need to retract the statement.

Even if your personal experience did constitute an appropriate reference the fact that you are claiming it is too much of a labor intensive activity to provide those references does indeed constitute a refusal.

If you cannot or will not provide a reference you need to retract the statement.

If you cannot or will not provide a reference you need to retract the statement.

Actually, what is against the rules of the board is:

Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given

You have not given the references. Please provide them or retract the statement.

Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given.

Well, you said it.

No, I mean, you said it