Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 If you're tired of the gay-theme posts now, just wait until SCOTUS hears arguments on the gay marriage cases later this month.Yeah I can hardly wait. OF course I am sure you will disagree with them if the don't vote the way you are expecting?
mnn727 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) See post #177 on the thread, "General Conference: Moving Away From Traditional Marriage Definition?" http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65146-general-conference-moving-away-from-traditional-marriage-definition/page-9Reading that whole page, I can see it. Personally I would have given him 1 to 2 weeks to cool off unless this was already a pattern.I don't post often enough to know if it was a pattern or not. Edited April 10, 2015 by mnn727
Mystery Meat Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Bobbieware I understand your frustration. I don't think you understand mine. I am happy to endorse your right to find religious truth through the means that the LDS Church teaches no matter how flawed I think it is. And I endorse it as valid.... for you and only you. What I struggle with is the condemnation you and others heap on my head for seeking in a different way and me trying to explain why as well as delve into the effectiveness of both ways. I don't think you validate my approach at all. You just toss me in the Korihor camp. Thus I continue to point out the flaws I see in the methods promoted that rely on faith on supernatural and personal only revelation. For the record, I have no problem with you seeking truth outside of faith. EVERYBODY does it to a certain extent (BOM archaeology for example). I have done it in just about every aspect of my testimony for example. However, I have found in my own life that it is a fruitless endeavor. And I say that without any condemnation of you or your attempts to reason your way to eternal truth. I just don't think you will find the answers you are looking for that way. In fact, I know you won't. Faith is the only way to obtain truth from its source. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The mods were very rude for putting me on Limited and never sending a message or explaining why. I hope that isn't a reflection of how leadership in the church works, because the mods are not acting with good intentions at heart then.
mnn727 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) I should probably drop my frequent comments about reason and evidence vs faith. But it seems to be the crux of many of the problems. No, as reason can go hand in hand with faith. God set up this universe with rules, He Himself is going to need a pretty good reason to break those rules IMHOI also do not believe God uses trickery against us like some claim: like burying fossil records to make it appear the Earth is billions of years old. No the Earth really is billions of years old. Edited April 10, 2015 by mnn727
Teancum Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 For the record, I have no problem with you seeking truth outside of faith. EVERYBODY does it to a certain extent (BOM archaeology for example). I have done it in just about every aspect of my testimony for example. However, I have found in my own life that it is a fruitless endeavor. And I say that without any condemnation of you or your attempts to reason your way to eternal truth. I just don't think you will find the answers you are looking for that way. In fact, I know you won't. Faith is the only way to obtain truth from its source. I appreciate your patience with me and your kind remarks.
tedar Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I confess I'm responsible for locking some of them (the ones I myself started; I don't have the capability of locking others). After I learned yesterday of the banning of Pahoran, I had all but decided to cease any further involvement with this board. My locking of my own active threads was to have been my parting statement of displeasure. Since then, I have been having second thoughts as to whether I want to burn my bridges here altogether just yet. As I ponder whether, after a decade or more of participation, this board is still a good fit for me, I have decided to keep them locked for now to avoid being distracted by any further contentious content on them. And in truth, it was probably time some of them be locked anyway. In particular, the dialogue had grown very repetitious on my thread about Elder Cook's statement in general conference that the Church has never been stronger. The Pahoran screenname was banned. There is reason to beleive the individual has began to actively post under a different screen name. 1
The Nehor Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) The mods were very rude for putting me on Limited and never sending a message or explaining why. I hope that isn't a reflection of how leadership in the church works, because the mods are not acting with good intentions at heart then.Why would you draw a parallel between mods on a message board and Church leadership? Seems a bit of a stretch. Edited April 10, 2015 by The Nehor 1
ksfisher Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Why would you draw a parallel between mods on a message board and Church leadership? Seems a bit of a stretch. Unless they are the same...
Anijen Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I confess I'm responsible for locking some of them (the ones I myself started; I don't have the capability of locking others). After I learned yesterday of the banning of Pahoran, I had all but decided to cease any further involvement with this board. My locking of my own active threads was to have been my parting statement of displeasure. Since then, I have been having second thoughts as to whether I want to burn my bridges here altogether just yet. As I ponder whether, after a decade or more of participation, this board is still a good fit for me, I have decided to keep them locked for now to avoid being distracted by any further contentious content on them. And in truth, it was probably time some of them be locked anyway. In particular, the dialogue had grown very repetitious on my thread about Elder Cook's statement in general conference that the Church has never been stronger.I love Pahoran. One of my favorite posters. 1
Gray Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Unless they are the same... This just in: MD board moderated by First Presidency!
Daniel2 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Calling locking a thread on an internet message board "unrighteous dominion" seems to be going a bit overboard.That phrase was typed with my tongue firmly pressed in my cheek.
sethpayne Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I would ask the powers that be to reconsider that ability... I agree. Thread authors too often kill threads just as the discussion gets interesting or they start losing the argument. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 This is a religious board and the mods are the leaders and the power. So in a way they act like religious leaders, closing threads which they do not deem worthy and banning the sinners. That sounds like correlation to me. Yet they do not give reasons for why they do things. Me being put on limited was me going to post one day and seeing my post status. No message, no comment, no explanation. I didn't do anything wrong to earn this, and it changed my views of those with positions of power in the church and mods who judge.
sethpayne Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Pahoran was banned? For good? Wow! Will wonders never cease. Is there a petition somewhere to reinstate him? Pahoran is one of the main reasons I read this board.
ttribe Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The Pahoran screenname was banned. There is reason to beleive the individual has began to actively post under a different screen name. IIRC, sockpuppets are a violation of a different rule around here.
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 My punishment for doing nothing without any explanation is I can't make any new threads. If I want to talk about a topic, I have to search in the past to find a thread that closely resembles what I want to talk about. Is this the message about the church that the mods want to send? I hope they answer yes on their temple recommend questions when asked if they are honest in their dealings with their fellow man.
sethpayne Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 IIRC, sockpuppets are a violation of a different rule around here. They are but certain folks have been granted an exception to the rule. 1
tedar Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 They are but certain folks have been granted an exception to the rule. Making the "reinstate pahoran" movement unnecessary.
ttribe Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) My punishment for doing nothing without any explanation is I can't make any new threads. If I want to talk about a topic, I have to search in the past to find a thread that closely resembles what I want to talk about. Is this the message about the church that the mods want to send? I hope they answer yes on their temple recommend questions when asked if they are honest in their dealings with their fellow man. That's a bit melodramatic for having posting privileges constrained on an Internet message board, don't you think? Edited April 10, 2015 by ttribe
Teancum Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The Pahoran screenname was banned. There is reason to beleive the individual has began to actively post under a different screen name. Yepper
carbon dioxide Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) I am going to try to stop posting comments on gay marriage related threads. Everyone has posted their position. We get bombarded with almost on a daily basis through the TV or internet media. I perhaps don't need to get hit with it here as well. Gays encompass about 2% of the population. Most of use will rarely meet more than a few gay people in our lives let alone someone who is in a gay marriage. Its an important issue but lets not give it too much importance. I got locked out of a few threats because I went a little too far according to the rules and there were all related to gay marriage issues. So that is another sign I should stay away from the topic. Edited April 10, 2015 by carbon dioxide 3
ksfisher Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 This just in: MD board moderated by First Presidency! Which one do you think is Nemesis?
Gray Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Which one do you think is Nemesis? Tough call. Aggressive sounding name, but maybe it was chosen ironically for a very gentle-natured person. President Eyring maybe?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Tough call. Aggressive sounding name, but maybe it was chosen ironically for a very gentle-natured person. President Eyring maybe?My 2 cents. Nemesis is related to Julian in some way and owns the actual server. My guess is that this person is a dude.
Recommended Posts