consiglieri Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Gospel Topic essays are intended to be used with curriculum and missionary work as well as personal study, according to one of the videos introducing them (been awhile since I watched them so can't remember which). As an example, seminary or institute is using a couple of them this year, iirc. I do hope that turns out, Calm. All I can remember is the Sunday School teacher in Hawaii who was released from his calling over using one of the Church essays in his class. 1
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 9, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 9, 2016 One of the first things teachers tell students before they turn them over to the Internet to research something is that you can't trust everything you find and to be very wary of the sources you choose. Are teachers poisoning the well? 8
Calm Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: All I can remember is the Sunday School teacher in Hawaii who was released from his calling over using one of the Church essays in his class. According to his side of the story. Nothing was heard from his bishop, iirc. Not saying he is lying, but people can come away from an experience with completely different ideas about what just happened. Edited January 9, 2016 by Calm 4
Guest Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Might I point out it is the calling of Apostles to warn and protect the Church and it's members. It is their calling to point out any danger that might bring us physical harm, or Spiritual harm. "Choose you this day, but for me and my house, we are staying in the boat".
Robert F. Smith Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Thinking said: This quote could be remotely construed as an admonition (without using the phrase anti-mormon). Quote Pres. Uchtdorf: It took me a little while before I realized the irony of what I was doing. Of course, researching things for ourselves is not a bad idea. But I was disregarding truth I could rely on and instead found myself being drawn to the often-outlandish claims of Internet lore. Sometimes, the truth may just seem too straightforward, too plain, and too simple for us to fully appreciate its great value. So we set aside what we have experienced and know to be true in pursuit of more mysterious or complicated information. Hopefully we will learn that when we chase after shadows, we are pursuing matters that have little substance and value. I kept thinking while I read it that this applies as well to the frequent nonsense we get on MDDB . . . A fact of life.
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted January 9, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: Quote Teancum said: Yes Sir! https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/faith-is-not-by-chance-but-by-choice?lang=eng And another by Elder Andersen in another conference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith?lang=eng Neither explicitly say don't read anti Mormon stuff but they certainly do disparage and essentially say you cannot trust anything critical that you read about the Church on the internet. Nice work, Teancum. I think we're up to six GC talks that disparage the use of the Internet to find out about Mormonism. On the contrary, consigliere, nothing that Apostle Andersen said in those addresses disparaged the use of the internet, even though he did caution that much of it is untrue -- a correct observation which many non-Mormon experts have made repeatedly. Only a yokel trusts everything he reads on the internet, and there are plenty of yokels out there (in and out of the LDS faith). Instead, Andersen gave sage advice which all of us ought to take to heart. I cannot understand why you are making an issue of this supposed problem, consigliere. Ain't no such thang. Indeed, the opposite is the case: The Brethren have repeatedly advised us that we ought to defend our faith on the internet, and many missionaries (male and female) have been using Skype for years to preach the Gospel. I have met many of them. For some it means that they can serve a mission despite a handicap. All of them point to their success on the internet -- their baptismal rate is higher than that of most other missions, perhaps owing to the self-selection of investigators on Skype. Edited January 9, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 5
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 14 hours ago, Calm said: According to his side of the story. Nothing was heard from his bishop, iirc. Not saying he is lying, but people can come away from an experience with completely different ideas about what just happened. If his bishop remains silent, that is his problem. I get very tired of this argument that because Church leaders don't say anything, you can't trust their victims.
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: On the contrary, consigliere, nothing that Apostle Andersen said in those addresses disparaged the use of the internet, even though he did caution that much of it is untrue -- It is remarkable how different people can read the same thing and come away with such different understandings. Here is how I see it, Robert, and I think this applies more to Scott who decided it was important enough to try to call me on an issue he raised on a thread now closed. Scott challenged another poster on a claim that Church leaders don't want members searching out Church history on the Internet (or something close to that). I said my recollection was that the first two speakers of last GC spoke on that subject. Scott started a brand new thread to call me on how "reckless" and wrong I was, even though I was just saying it was my recollection. As it turns out, I was completely right about the first speaker in last GC, President Uchtdorf. It appears Elder Ballard did not address the issue, instead spending his time in a recap of his previous GC address about staying in the boat. So I did some research and found (with others) at least six GC addresses that counsel against researching Mormonism on the Internet. Scott now wants to quibble with the wording, ignoring what Church leaders say in favor of trying to argue that they don't actually use the words, "Don't search the Interent." Scott does not want to be a member of a church that tries to keep its members in ignorance of the truth. Who would? And so Scott will do anything and everything he can to avoid the obvious truth that this is exactly what the LDS Church does. Over and over again. It is so important to Scott that he starts a new thread just to argue about the issue, even when he is clearly wrong. Scott has created a different LDS Church than the LDS Church that really exists. It is this "different LDS Church" that he defends. It is not the LDS Church of the prophets and apostles. It is the LDS Church of the apologists. 1
Avatar4321 Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 25 minutes ago, consiglieri said: If his bishop remains silent, that is his problem. I get very tired of this argument that because Church leaders don't say anything, you can't trust their victims. I dispute the fact that the church has any victims. Should it be any surprise that someone who doesn't keep a covenant might be seen as less than trustworthy? Actions and choices have consequences 2
Popular Post Avatar4321 Posted January 9, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 9, 2016 15 minutes ago, consiglieri said: It is remarkable how different people can read the same thing and come away with such different understandings. Here is how I see it, Robert, and I think this applies more to Scott who decided it was important enough to try to call me on an issue he raised on a thread now closed. Scott challenged another poster on a claim that Church leaders don't want members searching out Church history on the Internet (or something close to that). I said my recollection was that the first two speakers of last GC spoke on that subject. Scott started a brand new thread to call me on how "reckless" and wrong I was, even though I was just saying it was my recollection. As it turns out, I was completely right about the first speaker in last GC, President Uchtdorf. It appears Elder Ballard did not address the issue, instead spending his time in a recap of his previous GC address about staying in the boat. So I did some research and found (with others) at least six GC addresses that counsel against researching Mormonism on the Internet. Scott now wants to quibble with the wording, ignoring what Church leaders say in favor of trying to argue that they don't actually use the words, "Don't search the Interent." Scott does not want to be a member of a church that tries to keep its members in ignorance of the truth. Who would? And so Scott will do anything and everything he can to avoid the obvious truth that this is exactly what the LDS Church does. Over and over again. It is so important to Scott that he starts a new thread just to argue about the issue, even when he is clearly wrong. Scott has created a different LDS Church than the LDS Church that really exists. It is this "different LDS Church" that he defends. It is not the LDS Church of the prophets and apostles. It is the LDS Church of the apologists. How on earth do you conclude you were right about any of the quotesnbsaying what you claim when we have them right in front of us and they don't even imply what you claimed? 5
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: I dispute the fact that the church has any victims. Tell it to the straight kids of gay parents.
consiglieri Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 16 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: How on earth do you conclude you were right about any of the quotesnbsaying what you claim when we have them right in front of us and they don't even imply what you claimed? None is so blind as he who will not see.
bluebell Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: If his bishop remains silent, that is his problem. I get very tired of this argument that because Church leaders don't say anything, you can't trust their victims. I didn't realize that being released from a calling for any reason made someone a victim of their bishop. This must be one of those first world problems that the rest of the world makes fun of us for. And rightly so if they do. Edited January 9, 2016 by bluebell Typo 3
ERayR Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 16 hours ago, consiglieri said: 27 minutes ago, consiglieri said: None is so blind as he who will not see. Try looking in the mirror when you say that. 4
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: If his bishop remains silent, that is his problem. I get very tired of this argument that because Church leaders don't say anything, you can't trust their victims. And if a Bishop were to point out how deluded the person in his Ward was and how wrong they are you, all the mental illnesses that may have caused them to say these things, and what sins they need to repent of that could contribute to their gripe with the church you would take such a statement with pleasant equanimity? Doubt it. You get upset when people collect stuff publicly on the Internet and share it about people. 3
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 40 minutes ago, consiglieri said: None is so blind as he who will not see. Forgive me if I do not trust the supposed spiritual insights of an apostate. 2
Guest Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 18 hours ago, consiglieri said: Please stop overwhelming MDDB with excessive daily OPs, Scott. All you are lacking is BAN ME! on your avatar's forehead. Consig...back when you posted of your classes while teaching Gospel Doctrine. Please do all you can to stay around...your posts back then were something I looked forward to weekly. Even if the bonds of affection have strained, I think you still have much to teach, or at least to provoke thought. Be kind, be civil and hang around my brother. I know you have it in you, do not deny us of your fellowship. Do not deny me of your fellowship. Your brother in Christ Bill (Papa) Lee Atlanta, Georgia.
Guest Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 48 minutes ago, consiglieri said: None is so blind as he who will not see. A more poetic way of saying this... The blind they see no colors, The deaf they hear no voice. Halt not by birth it seems, But rather so by choice. -Lee- again if someone sees something differently, does not make them blind. Please proceed with a soft touch, as I asked before.
bluebell Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 21 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: A more poetic way of saying this... The blind they see no colors, The deaf they hear no voice. Halt not by birth it seems, But rather so by choice. -Lee- again if someone sees something differently, does not make them blind. Please proceed with a soft touch, as I asked before. Beautiful poem Pa Pa. Also, did you know that if you hold down the shift key while you push enter that it will only go down one line instead of two? That way you can format your poems easier. 1
Teancum Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 42 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Forgive me if I do not trust the supposed spiritual insights of an apostate. Ahh so we see the truth of the matter. Anyone who is seeking spiritual paths that don't meet your paradigm is flawed. Must be nice to be so wonderful.
busybee Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Tell it to the straight kids of gay parents. SOOOOO tired of this now. 4
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, Teancum said: Ahh so we see the truth of the matter. Anyone who is seeking spiritual paths that don't meet your paradigm is flawed. Must be nice to be so wonderful. It is, you should try it some time.
Guest Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 17 minutes ago, bluebell said: Beautiful poem Pa Pa. Also, did you know that if you hold down the shift key while you push enter that it will only go down one line instead of two? That way you can format your poems easier. Thank You...I have been wondering how to do this. God bless!
Teancum Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is, you should try it some time. Yes I know you are a legend in your own mind. A fine example you and so many others are here of what I certainly do not want to be.
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yes I know you are a legend in your own mind. A fine example you and so many others are here of what I certainly do not want to be. Awesomeness is a horrible burden to bear. I advise all to consider carefully before trying to join me on this glorious summit. 3
Recommended Posts