Setting the record straight on a false reply to a CFR

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Awesomeness is a horrible burden to bear. I advise all to consider carefully before trying to join me on this glorious summit.

Humility is a virtue you clearly lack.  .

 

 

[Zakuska]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Awesomeness is a horrible burden to bear. I advise all to consider carefully before trying to join me on this glorious summit.

 

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Awesomeness is a horrible burden to bear. I advise all to consider carefully before trying to join me on this glorious summit.

Glory... Glory...

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Humility is a virtue you clearly lack.  .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by The Nehor

[Calm]

6 hours 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.

If the Church said something and the one they were talking about said nothing, I would say the same thing.  I would say it in every case where we got only one side of the story.  We need to be careful in stating as facts when documentation or collaboration is missing, especially if one side is condemning another.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours 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."

...................................................................  

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.

Yes, it is remarkable how what someone sees or hears often tells us more about him than about the object of his interest.  One can be absolutely sure that his interpretation is correct, and that others are wrong, which leaves us at the "Tis so, tis not" level of discourse.  That usually happens when full documentation and quotes are not provided.  Andersen, for example.  "I say goodbye, you say hello.  Hello, hello, why do you always say goodbye, I say hello?"  Is my recollection correct, and did Andersen say what you claim, or is it more like what I claim?  Here are some quotes, which do not justify your claim.  Perhaps you have a better set of quotes, which a disinterested third party would agree actually disparage use of the internet.  I have yet to see or hear one.

 

Quote

 

Apostle Neil Andersen, Oct 2015, at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/faith-is-not-by-chance-but-by-choice?lang=eng (excerpt),

Faith never demands an answer to every question but seeks the assurance and courage to move forward, sometimes acknowledging, “I don’t know everything, but I do know enough to continue on the path of discipleship.”¹⁶

Immersing oneself in persistent doubt, fueled by answers from the faithless and the unfaithful, weakens one’s faith in Jesus Christ and the Restoration.¹⁷ “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.”¹⁸

For example, questions concerning the Prophet Joseph Smith are not new. They have been hurled by his critics since this work began. To those of faith who, looking through the colored glasses of the 21st century, honestly question events or statements of the Prophet Joseph from nearly 200 years ago, may I share some friendly advice: For now, give Brother Joseph a break! In a future day, you will have 100 times more information than from all of today’s search engines combined, and it will come from our all-knowing Father in Heaven.

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

Apostle Neil Andersen,  at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith?lang=eng (exceprts),

We are especially saddened when someone who once revered Joseph retreats from his or her conviction and then maligns the Prophet.¹⁰

“Studying the Church … through the eyes of its defectors,” Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said, is “like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.”¹¹

Jesus said, “Bless them that curse you, … and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”¹²Let us offer kindness to those who criticize Joseph Smith, knowing in our own hearts that he was a prophet of God and taking comfort that all this was long ago foretold by Moroni.

How should we respond to a sincere inquirer who is concerned about negative comments he or she has heard or read about the Prophet Joseph Smith? Of course, we always welcome honest and genuine questions.

*        *        *        *

We might remind the sincere inquirer that Internet information does not have a “truth” filter. Some information, no matter how convincing, is simply not true.

Years ago I read a Time magazine article that reported the discovery of a letter, supposedly written by Martin Harris, that conflicted with Joseph Smith’s account of finding the Book of Mormon plates.¹⁴

A few members left the Church because of the document.¹⁵

Sadly, they left too quickly. Months later experts discovered (and the forger confessed) that the letter was a complete deception.¹⁶ You may understandably question what you hear on the news, but you need never doubt the testimony of God’s prophets.

We might remind the inquirer that some information about Joseph, while true, may be presented completely out of context to his own day and situation.

 

[readstoomuch]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

If the Church said something and the one they were talking about said nothing, I would say the same thing.  I would say it in every case where we got only one side of the story.  We need to be careful in stating as facts when documentation or collaboration is missing, especially if one side is condemning another.

What Cal said, except much more succinctly than I could say.  

[Calm]

Well said.

[Thinking]

On 1/9/2016 at 5:39 PM, 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.

Any bishops out there can correct me but I don't think it would be appropriate for the bishop to comment on the situation.

[Calm]

And I definitely agree with that.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And I definitely agree with that.  

Congratulations, Calm, on topping 12,000 rep points. First to reach the 10,000 point summit and still going strong!

[Zakuska]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Congratulations, Calm, on topping 12,000 rep points. First to reach the 10,000 point summit and still going strong!

Show off!

[Calm]

That one crept up on me without warning, lol. What would I do without you guys.