Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[stemelbow]

Wait, are you two trying to suggest that stem is an "anti-Mormon" wolf-in-sheep's clothing?   That would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

My problems go deeper than I thought. I'm thinking of finding a restaurant that serves sheep tonight.

Edited June 8, 2015 by stemelbow

[why me]

Wait, are you two trying to suggest that stem is an "anti-Mormon" wolf-in-sheep's clothing?   That would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

I don't remember saying the word antimormon. But nice try. I think that you know very well what I meant. I see it on most threads. The excommunication threads are a case in point. What I am saying that the board has many members of the church who are critical of the church. In the old days, apologetists would play hard ball. Now those who defend the church need to play soft ball or we get a post like yours as a comeback.

 

If I remember correctly, Stem used to defend the church. However, I don't see that anymore. But I could be wrong in my memory.

Edited June 8, 2015 by why me

[ttribe]

For my part, the answer is no. I think stemelbow misguided in some respects, but I would not apply either of those terms to him.

 

I have to say, though, when I see threads such as this one, I'm led to say in my heart, "Who needs anti-Mormons."

 

Because...?

 

My problems go deeper than I thought. I'm thinking of finding a restaurant that serves sheep tonight.

 

Indeed; on the rare side, I presume.

 

I don't remember saying the word antimormon. But nice try. I think that you know very well what I meant. I see it on most threads. The excommunication threads are a case in point. What I am saying that the board has many members of the church who are critical of the church. In the old days, apologetists would play hard ball. Now those who defend the church need to play soft ball or we get a post like yours as a comeback.

 

Scott included a quote referring to "anti-Mormons" and you jumped all over it with the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing imagery.

 

Oh, and the "old days" of attack apologetics are still alive and kicking, just look at this thread.

Edited June 8, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

Because...?

 

Because unseemly and wholly unwarranted comparisons of the Church of Jesus Christ -- such as in this thread -- to people who drew the severest reprimands from Christ in recorded scripture potentially bring the Church into disrepute. And that (one would think) is the province of anti-Mormons.

 

Ergo, with members of the Church doing this, who needs anti-Mormons?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Because...?

 

 

Indeed; on the rare side, I presume.

 

 

Scott included a quote referring to "anti-Mormons" and you jumped all over it with the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing imagery.

 

Oh, and the "old days" of attack apologetics are still alive and kicking, just look at this thread.

But you addressed the term to me. I never used it. But you are giving yourself away with the term 'attack apologists'. I never gave any sense of a wolf in sheeps clothing image. But I understand why you are 'attacking' me for what I said. It does hit home. We have quite a few members of the church on this board who seem to like to attack the lds church for whatever reason. And we defenders need to feed them cotton candy or we get attacked by posters like you. And at times even cotton candy answers get a 'red card' or a pressing of the report button.

 

I miss the good old days when defenders could be defenders. Now they have left for the blogs which is okay too. I do believe that the maxwell purge affected this board. It changed at around that time. But I am okay with it. As bob dylan said: the times, they are a changing.

Edited June 8, 2015 by why me

[ttribe]

Because unseemly and wholly unwarranted comparisons of the Church of Jesus Christ -- such as in this thread -- to people who drew the severest reprimands from Christ in recorded scripture potentially bring the Church into disrepute. And that (one would think) is the province of anti-Mormons.

 

Ergo, with members of the Church doing this, who needs anti-Mormons?

 

So, internal critics, no matter how well-meaning, are worse than the old-school "anti-" crowd; correct?

 

BTW, I don't really see stem's opening post they way you do, but that probably doesn't matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

It occurs to me that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ; that's why it is called the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

If the Church as a whole is as guilty of wrongdoing as the people to whom Christ directed his severest recorded reproaches, it seems to that we as a people are on the verge of being rejected by Christ. That would be an extremely grave matter.

 

Is that what stemelbow and ttribe really think?

[Mystery Meat]

As Stephen Robinson put it a generation ago:

 

Think your quote as it relates to stemelbow is a bit over the top and is out of context here.

[smac97]

There is indeed an irony to your first comment in this thread.

 

You haven't created any threads specifically about Kate Kelly and/or Ordain Women, and you haven't posted about Kate Kelly? And if you did, those threads/comments were not ment to vilify or cast disparagment on Kate Kelly and her involvment with Ordain Women.

Okay, I will own up to criticizing Kate Kelly's attacks on the Church and posting defenses of the Church from her attacks on it. 

 

How many times have you posted on this message board labeling Kate Kelly "dishonest"? But we need to not be judgemental right....except when you discuss(ed) you Kate Kelly?

I've been quite specific in my criticisms of Kate Kelly.  I have identified, chapter and verse, the statements and conduct I have found objectionable.  I likewise have frequently acknowledged her positive traits, and on occasion I have even defended her.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Mystery Meat]

Having watched this thread devolve, I must say I think Nehor's simple comment a while back is the best and would like to echo it. I think some of the responses (on both sides) have been a bit over the top. I think it is fair to wonder how the Savior's teachings apply to me, my family and anyone else concerning whom I have stewardship. Anything more than that amounts to ark steadying. I also think implying that those who ask questions (while in my mind inappropriate) such as this of things like dark, ulterior motives is also widely inappropriate. 

 

FYI, I think there is room to disagree with how the Church uses its resources and where its focus lies, but (disagreer beware) such person may be disagreeing with inspired revelation and counsel. Moreover, such disagreement should probably be kept within the bonds of such person's stewardship. 

 

For what it's worth.

 

Edited so my writing doesn't look quite as craptastic.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[ttribe]

But you addressed the term to me. I never used it. But you are giving yourself away with the term 'attack apologists'. I never gave any sense of a wolf in sheeps clothing image. But I understand why you are 'attacking' me for what I said. It does hit home. We have quite a few members of the church on this board who seem to like to attack the lds church for whatever reason. And we defenders need to feed them cotton candy or we get attacked by posters like you. And at times even cotton candy answers get a 'red card' or a pressing of the report button.

 

I must be a little slow...how am I "giving [myself] away?"

 

Oh, and if you really went back and re-read my first post in this little exchange, I was responding to the side conversation you and Scott were having and addressed my question to the two of you.  I really did want to know what you were trying to say with your conversation in this thread.  As to the "wolf-in-sheep's-clothing", you are correct that you never actually used the term, but it's difficult not to see it in comments such as: "Now we have members as critics." and "I can say that both you and I know what is behind the facade of their posts since we have been on various boards for years."  If that's not what I characterized it as, please correct me.

 

BTW, I didn't say "attack apologists" (which would be name-calling), I said "attack apologetics" (which would be a label I am applying to your so-called "hard ball" way of putting critics "in their place.")

[JLHPROF]

If the Church as a whole is as guilty of wrongdoing as the people to whom Christ directed his severest recorded reproaches, it seems to that we as a people are on the verge of being rejected by Christ. That would be an extremely grave matter.

 

 

Well, it would make the prophecies of a setting in order make a little more sense.

But I don't think the Church will be rejected or else there is an awful lot of prophecy that will go unfulfilled.

[Scott Lloyd]

Think your quote as it relates to stemelbow is a bit over the top and is out of context here.

If you go back and look, I think you'll find I didn't apply the quote directly to stemelbow.

 

It was in response to an observation from why me to the effect that professed members of the Church on this board seem more and more to be doing what brazen anti-Mormons here did in the past.

 

I think his observation in large measure is accurate.

[ttribe]

It occurs to me that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ; that's why it is called the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

If the Church as a whole is as guilty of wrongdoing as the people to whom Christ directed his severest recorded reproaches, it seems to that we as a people are on the verge of being rejected by Christ. That would be an extremely grave matter.

 

Is that what stemelbow and ttribe really think?

 

Wait, what?  Since when did I sign off on stem's post?  Answer: I didn't.  I just don't see it being, what you see it being.

[bluebell]

I dont' really have any reason to think the Pharisees weren't much different than what you describe though.

 

 

You honestly believe that the pharisees were sincere people who tried their hardest to do what God wanted them to do?  

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, it would make the prophecies of a setting in order make a little more sense.

But I don't think the Church will be rejected or else there is an awful lot of prophecy that will go unfulfilled.

The Church will not be rejected because the accusations are outrageously false.

[Scott Lloyd]

You honestly believe that the pharisees were sincere people who tried their hardest to do what God wanted them to do?  

Yeah, that's a real head-scratcher.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wait, what?  Since when did I sign off on stem's post?  Answer: I didn't.  I just don't see it being, what you see it being.

So you don't agree that Christ's severest recorded accusations and condemnation apply to His own Church in latter-days? Glad to hear it.

 

Maybe you and stemelbow can hash that out.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

So you don't agree that Christ's sharp recorded accusations and condemnation apply to His own Church in latter-days? Glad to hear it.

 

It's this kind of nonsense that makes you very difficult to deal with.

[smac97]

Having watched this thread devolve, I must say I think Nehor's simple comment a while back is the best and would echo my simple response. I think some of the responses (on both sides) have been a bit over the top. I think it is fair to wonder how the Savior's teachings apply to me, my family and anyone else concerning whom I have stewardship. Anything more than that amounts to ark steadying. I also think implying that those who ask questions (while in my mind inappropriate) such as this of things like dark, ulterior motives is widely inappropriate. 

 

FYI, I think there is room to disagree with how the Church uses its resources and where its focus lies, but (disagreer beware) such person may be disagreeing with inspired revelation and counsel. Moreover, such disagreement should probably be kept within the bonds of such person's stewardship. 

 

For what it's worth.

 

Well said.  I think I should have been more circumspect in my remarks.  To that end, I apologize to Stemelbow for my intemperate remarks.

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

[ttribe]

Well said.  I think I should have been more circumspect in my remarks.  To that end, I apologize to Stemelbow for my intemperate remarks.

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

 

[cinepro]

 

I tend to agree.  But couldn’t we increase our emphasis on community service without reducing our emphasis on home teaching and temple work?  Perhaps we should look at community service as a logical extension of home teaching (helping members) and vicarious temple work (service work for the dead), rather than as a competing goal.  Besides, a greater emphasis on community service might help us to become better home teachers (e.g., having a specific objective for each family, rather than making visits merely for the sake of making visits). 

 

 

Sure we could.

 

It would be great if, in addition to our Home Teaching numbers, we had to report on our community service numbers each month.  And when we got our Temple Recommends, in addition to being asked about attending our meetings, we were asked for specific ways in which we have served non-members recently.  It would be fantastic if instead of talking just about modest clothing, we talked to the youth about those who didn't have warm clothing to wear in the winter or enough food to eat, and how they should worry as much about them as they do about whether or not their shoulders are covered. 

 

It would be awesome if the mayor of one town said to another, after hearing that a Temple was being built in the other town, "You guys are in luck.  Once that Temple gets built, you are going to see a huge increase in the community service and support from the Mormons in your town.  You won't have a single kid going to bed hungry once that building is finished.  Just let the local Stake President know where the areas of need are in your community and watch those Mormons spring into action."

 

I'm not saying that we don't do service.  My own ward does several youth service projects a year (usually one around Youth Conference and one around Christmas), and there's Mormon Helping Hands, and our Ward Christmas service project, and of course all the Eagle Projects, and missionary service hours etc.  I guess this service seems to be treated as something extra and optional, like stake basketball or Ward picnics.  It isn't institutionalized or ingrained in the culture (like Temple trips and lessons on modesty).

[why me]

If you go back and look, I think you'll find I didn't apply the quote directly to stemelbow.

 

It was in response to an observation from why me to the effect that professed members of the Church on this board seem more and more to be doing what brazen anti-Mormons here did in the past.

 

I think his observation in large measure is accurate.

Which makes challenging them very difficult. It was much easier when dealing with antimormons. Do you remember a time when the critics were purged from the board because they became too many? And there needed to be a balance between believers and non believers? I wonder what is the balance now. But it would be difficult to 'purge' lds members who are critics.

[why me]

Sure we could.

 

It would be great if, in addition to our Home Teaching numbers, we had to report on our community service numbers each month.  And when we got our Temple Recommends, in addition to being asked about attending our meetings, we were asked for specific ways in which we have served non-members recently.  It would be fantastic if instead of talking just about modest clothing, we talked to the youth about those who didn't have warm clothing to wear in the winter or enough food to eat, and how they should worry as much about them as they do about whether or not their shoulders are covered. 

 

It would be awesome if the mayor of one town said to another, after hearing that a Temple was being built in the other town, "You guys are in luck.  Once that Temple gets built, you are going to see a huge increase in the community service and support from the Mormons in your town.  You won't have a single kid going to bed hungry once that building is finished.  Just let the local Stake President know where the areas of need are in your community and watch those Mormons spring into action."

 

I'm not saying that we don't do service.  My own ward does several youth service projects a year (usually one around Youth Conference and one around Christmas), and there's Mormon Helping Hands, and our Ward Christmas service project, and of course all the Eagle Projects, and missionary service hours etc.  I guess this service seems to be treated as something extra and optional, like stake basketball or Ward picnics.  It isn't institutionalized or ingrained in the culture (like Temple trips and lessons on modesty).

I am afaid that we are living in a 'bowling alone' society. And people do not have much time anymore for extra stuff. Most members don't even have time for HT or VT never mind doing other service projects. Work is beginning to eat away at leisure time and at family time. However, back in the day, when society was less focused on the 'cash nexus' and more on community, there was time for more service projects. Not to mention, soft ball leagues, basketball leagues, etc.  I remember several service projects in NYC, cleaning up abandoned lots etc. But now with the 'cash nexus' society that seems to be lessening a sense of community, church members would have no time. Many don't even have time for HT or VT these days because of work schedules taking up hours, not to mention traveling to the job etc.

Edited June 8, 2015 by why me

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You honestly believe that the pharisees were sincere people who tried their hardest to do what God wanted them to do?  

Paul certainly seemed sincere in his zeal to uphold the law:

 

even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh.

If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more:5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

 

Nicodemus seems equally sincere.

Edited June 8, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding