Scott Lloyd Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 Miss you bro! Oh I get it, a really old thread.And they told me my alerts are needless. 2
Five Solas Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 In your dreams.The dissenters may seem louder and more numerous because the Internet is their soapbox, but as one apostle assured us last conference, the Church of Jesus Christ has never been stronger.I get it-- Appearance != Reality Yes, we have your word on the matter, Scott. But how can we be fully confident what you say is true? --Erik
Scott Lloyd Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 I get it-- Appearance != Reality Actually, appearance does not necessarily equal reality. Yes, we have your word on the matter, Scott. But how can we be fully confident what you say is true? Actually, I'm not all that concerned about convincing you. But if you think a few vocal fringers on a message board is signaling the demise of the Church of Jesus Christ, well, see above.
Tsuzuki Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 I remember when my public exploration of multiple simultaneous religions on this board inspired the Church Handbook of Instructions to change the official definition of apostasy twice. Good times. Speaking of which, I'm about to take my III° initiation in Ordo Templi Orientis tomorrow/later today. I think I'll return to full activity in both the LDS and Roman Catholic Church after I complete the whole Man of Earth set at IV° and Perfect Initiate in O.T.O.
Calm Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 What were those changes and when did they happen and why?
Tsuzuki Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 What were those changes and when did they happen and why? 1999 CHI: "Total inactivity in the Church or attending or holding membership in another church does not constitute apostasy." (In early 2006 I join this board, introduce the concept of paradigm piracy, and declare my intention of being both Mormon and Catholic at the same time.)http://www.oocities.org/tribhis/paradigm.html 2006 CHI: "Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership is not ended after counseling and encouragement." (Over the course of several years, I continue to argue my ideas, find situational loopholes for most religions, and make it clear that my multiple religions would be personal, and not something I would try to "convert" people to.) 2010 CHI: "Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership is not ended after counseling and encouragement."
Kenngo1969 Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 We haven't gotten the high school kid just done with a class on 'the stupid things Mormons believe' showing up to put us in our place for a long, long time. They were always so cute in their intensity.We haven't? http://www.mormondialogue.org/user/29364-intra/
Stargazer Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 1999 CHI: "Total inactivity in the Church or attending or holding membership in another church does not constitute apostasy." (In early 2006 I join this board, introduce the concept of paradigm piracy, and declare my intention of being both Mormon and Catholic at the same time.) http://www.oocities.org/tribhis/paradigm.html 2006 CHI: "Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership is not ended after counseling and encouragement." (Over the course of several years, I continue to argue my ideas, find situational loopholes for most religions, and make it clear that my multiple religions would be personal, and not something I would try to "convert" people to.) 2010 CHI: "Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership is not ended after counseling and encouragement." troll.gif Oh, nice work, Tsuzuki! You know, you should chime in on the thread about excommunicating people, and demonstrate the practical method for getting the Church to change its policies! I've often thought about how much I like the Jewish faith, and now clearly I can become a Jew and remain a Mormon! Sweet! Well, a Mormon with a special twist on the Word of Wisdom, anyway. 1
Tsuzuki Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 Oh, nice work, Tsuzuki! You know, you should chime in on the thread about excommunicating people, and demonstrate the practical method for getting the Church to change its policies!I've often thought about how much I like the Jewish faith, and now clearly I can become a Jew and remain a Mormon! Sweet! Well, a Mormon with a special twist on the Word of Wisdom, anyway.I have more interest in exploring ideas than in changing policies. I just thought the reaction was funny.
Five Solas Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 Actually, appearance does not necessarily equal reality.!= is the SQL Boolean expression for not equals. "Appearance != reality" was my summation of your argument. We quite agree on what your argument is, Scott. And now you're twice wrong...;0) --Erik
Calm Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) We haven't? http://www.mormondialogue.org/user/29364-intra/ Since intra joined almost two years after my comment, then I think I could even have added another "long" to the 'dry spell'. Edited June 8, 2015 by calmoriah
Calm Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 I have more interest in exploring ideas than in changing policies. I just thought the reaction was funny.Couldn't follow your line of thought, thanks for the clarification.
Stargazer Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 I have more interest in exploring ideas than in changing policies. I just thought the reaction was funny. Of course. I know. I was just using your idea exploration in a tangential way.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 != is the SQL Boolean expression for not equals. "Appearance != reality" was my summation of your argument. We quite agree on what your argument is, Scott. And now you're twice wrong...;0) --ErikGuess I need to read up on Boolean expressions.
why me Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) I think that we had more lurkers and people seeking answers from what they viewed on the internet. I think that usually these people would find answers through the defense the apologists gave to the critics. It was more hard hitting during FAIR ownership. And it was more apologetic. Things have changed now with changing circumstances. The church is beginning to come up with their own interpretations of church history, something that they did before the internet revolution through the Ensign before they stopped in an untimely way. And now we dont actually see genuine critics on the board like we used to nor do we see much apologetics now. Maybe this is all due to the Maxwell purge. Or much is done through blogging and not through discussion boards. Now, I see more members being critical of church doctrine and in church leadership. This is different now from the past. Many people here also seem to be members with issues and non-issues who have more or less made up their minds that the church is not true but still remain members and wish to discuss with more believing members on the board. Interesting there are more personal threads about people now who have been exed. It seems that members wish to highlight what they see as an inustice to the person or people exed. Of course, in such threads we have only the people being exed explanations and not the other side and so, it makes the conversation lopsided. But this is also an expression of doubt about the excommunication process. So, when I came to this board ten years ago, seeking answers to my issues, I would have found them in apologetic answers and this is what happened to me. Now, if I came to this board now the same person that I was 11 years ago, I would most likely have left the church because there is too much doubt here. Or I would need to go to staunch member blogs and get answers there by reading their various blog posts, for example, dan's blogs etc. Of course, I am sure that some have been helped here. But it is more like a therapy session kind of help but even then, I haven't seen much change in posters becoming more positive about the church. Interestingly, I think that we have had more active members become more critical of church policy etc. .And if one is apolgetic in defence of the church to someone with doubts, the report button will be pressed etc. Edited June 8, 2015 by why me 2
Recommended Posts