The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[Hamba Tuhan]

I do THINK that I am right.

 

Ah, so you were indeed protesting too much. Methought as much.

[mfbukowski]

I will not claim that my positions are inspired by God because this is a DISCUSSION board. I thought the purpose of discourse here was to use logic and reasoning and not simply pull the trump card of, "God told me I was right, so there!" That being said, I do THINK that I am right.

 

Just to get this straight- you think you are right, and you love the church.  You admit that it would be evidence that the church was NOT true if you were called to leadership.

 

Your position is right yet the church would not be true if you were called into leadership, to put your positions into effect.

 

So you are right but the church would be wrong to implement your positions.

 

And you are talking about reason and logic?

Edited October 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mormonnewb]

Just to get this straight- you think you are right, and you love the church. You admit that it would be evidence that the church was NOT true if you were called to leadership.

Your position is right yet the church would not be true if you were called into leadership, to put your positions into effect.

So you are right but the church would be wrong to implement your positions.

And you are talking about reason and logic?

No, the Church would be right to implement my suggestions but would be wrong to call ME to leadership. Is this really a difficult position to understand? Just because I think I'm right (on one or two issues) doesn't mean that I should be part in charge of the entire Church. That would be just silly.

For example, back in 2004, I opposed the U.S. going to war in Iraq. I may have been right on that one. But at no point did that position qualify me to be President of the United States.

By the way, you agree with the leadership on all of these issues. But does that qualify you to lead the Church? Knowing what the Church should do and having the qualities to lead it to that point are two separate things.

[Hamba Tuhan]

So you are right but the church would be wrong to implement your positions.

 

And you are talking about reason and logic?

 

You may want to cut MN some slack. I suspect that when a person who assumes the apostles get to impose their personal agendas on the Church (despite what God might want) is called out for wishing, rather desperately, that he could do the same, the most logical deflection may be to pretend to a self-effacing humility.

[mormonnewb]

You may want to cut MN some slack. I suspect that when a person who assumes the apostles get to impose their personal agendas on the Church (despite what God might want) is called out for wishing, rather desperately, that he could do the same, the most logical deflection may be to pretend to a self-effacing humility.

I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to understand. Have you never heard of an armchair quarterback?

Every weekend, MILLIONS of men sit on their couches and shout instructions to the football players and coaches on their TV sets. We all think we know how they should do their jobs. Yet, NONE of us share the delusion that we have the talent to play or coach pro football.

In fact, all during the week, there are radio shows dedicated to what the participants did wrong the previous weekend. The callers debate back and forth, yet no argument is won or lost because the caller is not qualified to play pro football. That defeats the entire purpose of having the show in the first place.

Of course, one could always argue that spending time engaged in such pursuits is futile, but in that case, let he who has the fewest lifetime posts cast the first stone.

Edit: To use a less trivial example, we allow lay jurors to determine issues of medical malpractice. We don't require that any of them be willing to take over the doctor's practice to determine if the doctor should not have left a scalpel inside the patient after surgery.

Edited October 6, 2014 by mormonnewb

[california boy]

 The same Holy Spirit that bore witness to me that what I read in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was the truth about Jesus Christ that caused me to drop to my knees and accept Christ as my Savior. This is the same Spirit that bears witness to me that the BoA is scripture, that these are the words and records of Abraham. I don't really care what it appears like to scholars and other members. As you said "it appears", the jury is still out and I'll accept them as scripture until this same Spirit or Jesus Christ Himself tells me different. My wife and I are converts, we had the Spirit bear witness to us of JS, The BoM, D&C, PoGP, the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints BEFORE we joined the Church. First the Gospels bore witness of Christ and then came the missionaries. Then came the mighty attack by Satan. Then came holding onto the iron rod through YEARS of Light fighting Darkness. The battle is not over until we endure til the end. It is so important to develop a personal relationship with The Father and The Son through the Holy Spirit. This is the only thing that will carry you through dark times. This is the only way you can confirm the truth of doctrines, policies and the truth of various scriptures or words from our leaders. The witness of the Holy Spirit is the only way you can know if our leaders are truly lead by Jesus Christ and if they truly receive their orders from Him regarding all things.

 

The best advice i heard this weekend was 1. Pray daily 2. Read the Scriptures daily, 3. Have FHE and 4. do your Temple work. 32 years later I'm still struggling to get a TR. I have a good idea of what you are going through and you all are welcome in my home anytime. even if we don't agree on doctrine or policy. It's all I have to offer.

Then perhaps this is the answer to the question posed by the thread.  Now Anti-Mormons are LDS because so many have not had the witness of the Holy Ghost like you have.  So for them, it becomes a bigger problem.  Just a thought.

 

 

[Storm Rider]

I think that the Brethren are almost exclusively meeting members who are constantly telling them how perfect they are in every way. In fact, rock stars would kill for a fraction of the adoration bestowed on, say, President Monson. So, yes, I think they have a skewed view of the Church. And just like rock stars, they run the risk of making grievious errors because NO ONE feels they have the right to tell them differently.

In comment after comment, I read, "This is the Lord's church. HE will deal with the prophets if they need to change things." And that's fine, possibly even theologically correct, but it will result in a leadership that never receives constructive feedback from the faithful. Which of you "righteous" Mormons would ever tell an apostle, "You know, you could do a better job of _____"?

So, unless the Brethren are hanging out in Mormon Stories groups or lurking on this board, I suspect that their view of the pew might be somewhat askew." (Rhyming intentional)

 

I do agree that this must be a constant danger for the leadership - they are afforded such a high degree of respect from the members that it would be extremely easy to transfer respect for the mantle to a perceived respect for the "me".  This degree of respect produces two different types of problems:  1) it would make it far too easy to breathe one's own ether  and 2)  absence of contact with those who have contrarian views removes the leader from the membership as a whole.

 

The response to the problems can be solved and observed:  1) it is relatively easy to identify the proud and arrogant in person - we know when someone is breathing their own ether, 2)  the leaders are constantly hearing from and communicating with leaders that are communicating with the problems of the members and with the world at large.  Their travels put them in direct contact with the world at large; they see with their own eyes the problems that exist. 

[HappyJackWagon]

This thread was prophetic. After conference it appears the Q15 agree with the OP.

[Boanerges]

This thread was prophetic. After conference it appears the Q15 agree with the OP.

Except that it's not unanimous - there were at least two references to those who question being OK, and even Oaks said to be nice to people who don't believe the same.

[HappyJackWagon]

Except that it's not unanimous - there were at least two references to those who question being OK, and even Oaks said to be nice to people who don't believe the same.

There were a couple token references of acceptance but the overall theme was "get in line", "stay in the boat" & "don't be fooled by the internet." Those who question are trying to justify their lower standards etc. I wish you were right Boanerges but I just didn't feel it.

[Boanerges]

There were a couple token references of acceptance but the overall theme was "get in line", "stay in the boat" & "don't be fooled by the internet." Those who question are trying to justify their lower standards etc. I wish you were right Boanerges but I just didn't feel it.

I don't disagree that it was overall a conference of calling doubters/questioners to task, I was just pointing out that there were a couple apostles who did throw out tidbits. I honestly think Uchtdorf will not back down from the big tent ideal.

[HappyJackWagon]

I hope you're right but even Oaks seemed more consiliatory the Uchtdorf during conference.

[Scott Lloyd]

I hope no one here has labeled me or any of my thread questions as anti Mormon, as I wouldn't want to be. I love the church and our leaders and especially love Thomas S. Monson and Jesus.

There is a distinction between questioning and agitating that many seem to miss. You (insofar as I've been able to observe) have not crossed that line.

[Tsuzuki]

There is a distinction between questioning and agitating that many seem to miss. You (insofar as I've been able to observe) have not crossed that line.

The difference lies in someone else's reaction to the questioning, which you have no control over.

 

Never be afraid to agitate. Jacob wrestled with an angel, and Israel literally means "He who struggles with God."

 

"If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him." - Liber AL vel Legis II:59

[why me]

I appreciate your attention to the news and your ability to see what is going to be tried, but this "synod" doesn't have authority to overturn 2,000 years of teaching on the sacrament of Matrimony. This isn't changing the Friday penance to something of your choice if you want to eat meat. This is not pastoral. This is not disciplinary. It is faith and morals.

 

The constant teaching of the Catholic Church would deny that even a pope or ecumenical council has authority to change church teaching on the Sacrament. This is sooooo deeply rooted. Why did the pope let the entire island of England leave the Church? If divorced and remarried people could receive Holy Communion, what was all the fuss about with Henry VIII? How stupid has the Church been to have taught that it was adultery for nearly 2,000 years? Who could think the true church could pull such a colossal blunder to its own detriment?

I think that the pope is sending out mixed messages about a number of things. And just recently he seemed to have lost his patience with the two wings of the church that are battling it out: the conservative wing and the liberal wing. However, it is the pope himself that has caused this problem through his off the cuff remarks and actions. But so far, the catholic church is still the  same as when pope benedict was pope. But francis' message for the media is certainly more popular with the media.

[Scott Lloyd]

The difference lies in someone else's reaction to the questioning, which you have no control over.

 

Never be afraid to agitate. Jacob wrestled with an angel, and Israel literally means "He who struggles with God."

 

"If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him." - Liber AL vel Legis II:59

Nonsense.

 

Acrimony is still acrimony, pressure is still pressure, whether or not someone else chooses to ignore it.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I hope you're right but even Oaks seemed more consiliatory the Uchtdorf during conference.

Perhaps that's because President Uchtdorf's former remarks were widely misconstrued.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tsuzuki]

Nonsense.

 

Acrimony is still acrimony, whether or not someone else chooses to ignore it.

Sometimes it's projected where none is intended, but I wouldn't worry about it either way. Voicing your questions (in whatever way you do best) is the only way they'll get answered (even if the answer is silence or hostility).

[mormonnewb]

There is a distinction between questioning and agitating that many seem to miss. You (insofar as I've been able to observe) have not crossed that line.

Congratulations, VideoGameJunkie! You have been found righteous in the eyes of Scott Lloyd. As it states in scripture, "Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with thy Lloyd."

Personally, I'd rather be found righteous in the eyes of GOD, although to thy Lloyd its probably all the same.

Edited October 6, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Scott Lloyd]

Sometimes it's projected where none is intended, ...

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about obvious pressure and acrimony. It's not that difficult to tell the difference.

 

... but I wouldn't worry about it either way. Voicing your questions (in whatever way you do best) is the only way they'll get answered (even if the answer is silence or hostility).

 

Obnoxiousness that provokes resistance doesn't accomplish a whole lot.

[Scott Lloyd]

Congratulations, VideoGameJunkie! You have been found righteous in the eyes of Scott Lloyd. As it states in scripture, "Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with thy Lloyd."

Personally, I'd rather be found righteous in the eyes of GOD, although to thy Lloyd its probably all the same.

cheap shot

[3DOP]

I think that the pope is sending out mixed messages about a number of things. And just recently he seemed to have lost his patience with the two wings of the church that are battling it out: the conservative wing and the liberal wing. However, it is the pope himself that has caused this problem through his off the cuff remarks and actions. But so far, the catholic church is still the  same as when pope benedict was pope. But francis' message for the media is certainly more popular with the media.

 

I belong to neither wing. Really, I am a liberal when it comes to the papacy. Conservatives are really messed up about how you have to defend every word and action of  the living pope. They have been fine with criticizing Cardinal Mahoney when he was Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles. For what? For saying and doing the same kind of things as Pope Francis.

 

I may have told this before. There is a story in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited where Rex Mottram, an ambitious Canadian wants to marry into a wealthy Catholic family, but they are seriously Catholic and he can see that he needs to convert if he wants to marry this girl and gain some position. So he takes instruction from a local priest who tries to explain the limited authority of the papacy to this pretty irreligious guy who is just groping his way around trying to imagine what these Catholics believe. In an hilarious scene, the priest asks Rex what it would mean if the pope says it is raining outside, but you look outside to see that the sun is shining. He thinks a bit, and then lights up because he thinks he has the answer. "I suppose", says Rex, "that it would mean that it is raining spiritually." The difference between Rex and conservative Catholics is that they think if the sun is shining and the pope says it is raining, one cannot be certain that they will not believe it is raining. I exaggerate, not a lot though. It gets pretty nutty sometimes. The hyper-papalism of many conservatives which only applies to the living pope is a big problem in my opinion.  

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Hey mormonnewb,

 

You had written a post I back in #156, that I finally replied to in #222. I am hoping that #222 will be merely mistaken, instead of dangerously mistaken! Heh. Anyway, I see your hands are full. Do not feel obligated to reply immediately or at all for that matter. I had promised I would respond to #156 and want you to know that I did. Carry on.

 

Rory 

[Guest]

I think it is clear from the context of this morning's talks that they are very aware of the "the church no longer gets revelation" theme found here on the internet, as well as obviously the changes already being made in how women participate in general conference.

It is a odd think that many members (disillusioned ones) want new revelation for revelation's sake...as they have "itching ears". While our critics want revelation so they have red meat for anti-Mormons websites. *sigh*

[Tsuzuki]

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about obvious pressure and acrimony. It's not that difficult to tell the difference.

 

Obnoxiousness that provokes resistance doesn't accomplish a whole lot.

When I want to know the texture of something, I apply a certain amount of pressure with my fingers, and gradually adding more pressure can tell me more about some of its properties. However, it if crumbles under the slightest touch, I may want to rethink its usefulness. Is this iron rod really made of iron, or is it butter (or jello)?

Edited October 6, 2014 by Tsuzuki

[HappyJackWagon]

Perhaps that's because President Uchdorf's former remarks were widely misconstrued.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.