A Question For The Longtimers Here, Were There As Many Topics On People Who Doubt, Say 7 Yrs. Ago?

[3DOP]

And I am out of points because I was too busy playing the sycophant game! Darn!

haha. No worries. You are more than generous with me! haha.

[GingerRed]

For a variety of reasons, I miss Consiglieri, Hammer, Hoops, Jaybear, and Aaron Shafovaloff.

I don't! Sometimes they could be absolutely horrible! ( but...it WAS kinda fun to see them get put in their place on occasion! We have a lot of good debaters here who sure know their stuff! )

Red

[BlueDreams]

Nope

Oh come on, hoops was kinda funny .

But then again, I have a sick sense of humor....

With luv,

BD

[volgadon]

I don't! Sometimes they could be absolutely horrible! ( but...it WAS kinda fun to see them get put in their place on occasion! We have a lot of good debaters here who sure know their stuff! )

Red

Out of that list I miss Consiglieri.

[Tacenda]

Out of that list I miss Consiglieri.

I read on NOM a little bit ago where he spoke of giving a talk in church, seemed to be doing well. Edited February 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[RobertAC]

Tacenda,

I recently joined the boards, but my sense is that that the membership may have openned up over time to include people like myself who may be friends of the church, but not a member. It seems that it also has included people who may have a general belief in Mormonism, but differing views on some issues.

To each their own, but I suspect that the questioning tone of some statements is an outgrowth of a broader membership on these boards.

[Five Solas]

A few weeks back Dr. Midgley called Calvinism "demonic." And this was followed by the sound of--crickets. Scarcely anyone here gave the proverbial rat's hindquarters.

Once upon a time another BYU professor on a predecessor forum made highly unflattering comments about Calvinism, and following a real outcry, walked it back. (As a side note, whatever happened to cksalmon?)

Half a dozen years ago, the subject of Christianity occupied many of the threads on the old site (e.g., what constitutes Christianity & whether LDS qualify). I got swallowed up in life and took a break. Now that I’m poking around again, it seems like many of the threads are basically insular, for example, a 30+ page thread debating the work of John Dehlin & what constitutes a real Mormon (or a “wolf”).

The emphasis has changed from—“what is Christian?” to—“what is Mormon?”

But my all time favorite poster was a guy who used an image of Charles Haddon Spurgeon as his avatar. He posted under the name "Theophilus." Very thoughtful defender of Reformed theology. This would have been around 2006.

I have to say, I kinda miss the old days. Got no dog in the “NOM” vs. “TBM” fight. Comically, it took me a while to figure out what "NOM" even meant. (This forum must be utterly perplexing to outsiders.)

--Erik

[volgadon]

And this was followed by the sound of--crickets.

Probably because we aren't real Christians, right?

[Freedom]

Tacenda,

I recently joined the boards, but my sense is that that the membership may have openned up over time to include people like myself who may be friends of the church, but not a member. It seems that it also has included people who may have a general belief in Mormonism, but differing views on some issues.

To each their own, but I suspect that the questioning tone of some statements is an outgrowth of a broader membership on these boards.

No, it has always been open. If anything, it has become less diverse. Or perhaps, the non-members and critics are of a much higher quality than some in the past.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I ask because it seems to be the running story that of people losing testimonies or finding unsavory info about church history about 7-10 yrs. ago.

In reading the NOM/Staylds boards, this seems to be the case.

Another question for longtimers, are you sick of threads that speak on it and wish to conversate other types of deep topics?

I joined 7 years ago...2 days ago. I used to be a well respected poster here, or so I thought. Also miss a lot of the old posters.

[Five Solas]

Probably because we aren't real Christians, right?

Your turn to read & and pay attention, volgadon. I suggested the conversation on the forum has become more insular. People are no longer all that interested in debating Christian theology (or theologies). They want to debate what constitutes a real Mormon. They want to debate the work of John Dehlin. Calvinism, by comparison, isn't all that interesting to the folks who participate here.

Does the response (lack thereof) to Dr. Midgley leave any doubt?

--Erik

[ERayR]

Your turn to read & and pay attention, volgadon. I suggested the conversation on the forum has become more insular. People are no longer all that interested in debating Christian theology (or theologies). They want to debate what constitutes a real Mormon. They want to debate the work of John Dehlin. Calvinism, by comparison, isn't all that interesting to the folks who participate here.

Does the response (lack thereof) to Dr. Midgley leave any doubt?

--Erik

Probably because that is current.

[BlueDreams]

Your turn to read & and pay attention, volgadon. I suggested the conversation on the forum has become more insular. People are no longer all that interested in debating Christian theology (or theologies). They want to debate what constitutes a real Mormon. They want to debate the work of John Dehlin. Calvinism, by comparison, isn't all that interesting to the folks who participate here.

Does the response (lack thereof) to Dr. Midgley leave any doubt?

--Erik

I kinda remember it as discussion burn out. I remember 30+ page discussions on faith v works.....that went nowhere, were circular in nature, and would occur over and over again, often from the same posters who just figured this time it'll be obvious that they're not christian and that they don't really believe in grace and what not. I do sometimes miss some doctrinal debates that went back and forth. There were some interesting ideas that would float about. But at this point and with the crowd that's around, I agree with ERayR....they're just not all that current or pressing in interest at the moment.

The focus on the church has been more social aspects and issues. And even the media the questions have moved from are they a cult/christian to just what are they anyways.

With luv,

BD

[Five Solas]

And even the media the questions have moved from are they a cult/christian to just what are they anyways.

With luv,

BD

and if this board is any indication--LDS themselves are no less engaged to produce an answer.

thanks BD,

--Erik

[Calm]

When Rob Bowman comes on, there tends to be some looooonnnngg threads, but other than him we just don't seem to have Protestants who care to debate much that I can think of off the top of my head besides coolrok who slips into proselyting mode quite a bit which tends to cut short the debate.

Edited February 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Five Solas]

When Rob Bowman comes on, there tends to be some looooonnnngg threads, but other than him we just don't seem to have Protestants who care to debate much that I can think of off the top of my head besides coolrok who slips into proselyting mode quite a bit which tends to cut short the debate.

that wasn't the case ~ 7 years ago (see my previous post). why do you think that is now, calmoriah?

[Calm]

I don't know honestly. We are still here.

[3DOP]

A few weeks back Dr. Midgley called Calvinism "demonic." And this was followed by the sound of--crickets. Scarcely anyone here gave the proverbial rat's hindquarters.

Once upon a time another BYU professor on a predecessor forum made highly unflattering comments about Calvinism, and following a real outcry, walked it back. (As a side note, whatever happened to cksalmon?)

Half a dozen years ago, the subject of Christianity occupied many of the threads on the old site (e.g., what constitutes Christianity & whether LDS qualify). I got swallowed up in life and took a break. Now that I’m poking around again, it seems like many of the threads are basically insular, for example, a 30+ page thread debating the work of John Dehlin & what constitutes a real Mormon (or a “wolf”).

The emphasis has changed from—“what is Christian?” to—“what is Mormon?”

But my all time favorite poster was a guy who used an image of Charles Haddon Spurgeon as his avatar. He posted under the name "Theophilus." Very thoughtful defender of Reformed theology. This would have been around 2006.

I have to say, I kinda miss the old days. Got no dog in the “NOM” vs. “TBM” fight. Comically, it took me a while to figure out what "NOM" even meant. (This forum must be utterly perplexing to outsiders.)

--Erik

Wow, you've been lurking a while. I missed the comment by Louis, as he expressed as the preferred reference to him.

I think many would remember CK Salmon. He was prolific.I remember a guy who used a picture of Spurgeon. That most have been Theophilus. Paul Hadik was an Old ZLMB guy, Calvinist, who was one of the moderators but hasn't surfaced around here for a long time. I consider him a friend. I have a Facebook page. My only friend is Paul. (I am not very active) He helped keep the haters down. As a former Baptist and Calvinist become Catholic, I am sorry that some of my co-religionists are pretty harsh on Calvin too. For me, he was a step toward Rome because I had been schooled in dispensationalism. Catholics don't always appreciate our shared ideas, especially about how to interpret the Old Testament prophecies about the "Israel of God" and the covenant theology that stems from that. I think I have bumped into a few anti-Catholic Reformed folk over the years too so it cuts both ways. Anyway, if nobody Reformed steps forward, I can defend you guys when push comes to shove. But usually it seems like the subject waits for a Calvinist to show up. So jump on Erik everybody! heh.

Edited February 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[Calm]

I suppose the significant aversion many LDS appear to have toward the interpretation of the nature of God as defined by Calvinism may play a part in tiring out the strong Protestant posters. I would think hearing your God described as a monster would get old very fast.

Edited February 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

I suppose the significant aversion many LDS appear to have toward the interpretation of the nature of God as defined by Calvinism may play a part in tiring out the strong Protestant posters. I would think hearing your God described as a monster would get old very fast.

Yup. Calvinists are aware of the harshness of the doctrine. But does not St. Paul, in the passage that refers to God hating Esau encourage us to behold therefore the goodness of God? We sometimes forget the other attribute of God mentioned in the same passage according to the KJV translators. "Behold therefore the goodness and SEVERITY of God." I am not saying they are correct about TULIP or anything else, but they are reasonable in recognizing that we need to recognize that love is an attribute of God that is balanced with justice which may to some appear to be severe. I think for that reason, they are unmoved by arguments that say that this makes God...more or less...severe. In principle...I am not willing to ignore that God is in some sense severe either.

We can't just pick and choose our way through the Bible like the modernist Catholics who cut the passages from the Psalms that refer to crushing our enemies.

Edited February 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[Calm]

I don't think it is so much the idea of crushing enemies etc., but the idea that God created certain humans specifically to destroy them (the concept is of course much more nuanced than that, this is just the perception of Calvinism that most LDS have).

[3DOP]

I don't think it is so much the idea of crushing enemies etc., but the idea that God created certain humans specifically to destroy them (the concept is of course much more nuanced than that, this is just the perception of Calvinism that most LDS have).

I agree. I did not intend the "enemy crushing" to be Calvinist. I was thinking more of the lengths to which some will go to ignore difficult or even politically incorrect passages of Scripture. The Calvinist perhaps embraces them to a fault. Many are happy to forget that God is severe. A few forget that God has to be good.

Edited February 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[phaedrus ut]

I ask because it seems to be the running story that of people losing testimonies or finding unsavory info about church history about 7-10 yrs. ago.

In reading the NOM/Staylds boards, this seems to be the case.

It's been a on going story that's I've watched for 12+ years. Many people come to a board like this with questions and looking for a friendly crowd to help. Often it's the same story I stumbled upon "X" and I'm looking for answers. Unfortunately this place has deteriorated to the point where the loud obnoxious voices of the most die hard members seem to drown out the earnest people trying to help.

Another question for longtimers, are you sick of threads that speak on it and wish to conversate other types of deep topics?

The absence of "deep topics" and interesting threads is probably due to the absence of interesting participants(LDS and not) that have stop participating here. I miss the intellectual topics that were a regular item on the ZLMB, FAIR and MAD boards.

Phaedrus

[Tacenda]

I use to read the MDDB for a few years without having to register. Some of the conversations seemed way over my head and I would read in awe never imagining I'd be apart of them one day. Phaedrus, in my case I had several on here that have reached out to help me with huge patient levels. I consider them to be doing their missionary work but not proselytizing just listening or straightening me out on some things I've gotten wrong. I can't say enough what good has come out of that.

[why me]

I ask because it seems to be the running story that of people losing testimonies or finding unsavory info about church history about 7-10 yrs. ago.

In reading the NOM/Staylds boards, this seems to be the case.

Another question for longtimers, are you sick of threads that speak on it and wish to conversate other types of deep topics?

I have noticed it when the church began to distance itself from such issues. And this was in the late 80's. It is now a generational thing with the newbies and 30 or 20 something year old lifers seem unaware of the more controversial aspects of church history. But old timers knew of the hat, seer stones, money digging, polygamy etc. In fact, the hat trick was in the ensign way back when.

And as we can see from this article the translation process was heavily discussed in the ensign. The problem however is that there are conflicting accounts of the process and members who do come across anti sites seem to have not seen an article like this:

http://www.lds.org/e...ess book mormon

The Prophet Joseph alone knew the full process, and he was deliberately reluctant to describe details. We take passing notice of the words of David Whitmer, Joseph Knight, and Martin Harris, who were observers, not translators. David Whitmer indicated that as the Prophet used the divine instrumentalities provided to help him, “the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language … in bright luminous letters.” Then Joseph would read the words to Oliver (quoted in James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News, 25 Mar. 1884, 2). Martin Harris related of the seer stone: “Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin” (quoted in Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris,” Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, 6 Feb. 1882, 86–87). Joseph Knight made similar observations (see Dean Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,” BYU Studies 17 [Autumn 1976]: 35).

But the whole article is worth a read.

Edited February 11, 2013 by why me