Bishop Waddell on the great and spacious building

[Raingirl]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

With the judgment you judge so shall you be judged.

Tell that to Mr. Lloyd and so many other self righteous latter day saints that post here.

Me, I strive to not judge.  Scott may be right.  McGregor may be right. You may be right?  I may be wrong. I am open. I own my bad behavior and while I am a skeptic I am open to anywhere God, if God is there, may lead me, in or out of the LDS Church.

Are you or others who 'know" the LDS is true open to such a path?

 

Did you write the bolded sentence with a straight face?

You crow that you "strive not to judge" in the very same post (amongst many others written by you" wherein you slam and judge Scott.  You seem really bothered by people who are faithful to their beliefs.

Or did you really mean to write "I won't judge those who criticize the church like I do, because...you know...that's awesome!".

I have a lot of admiration for Scott.  His testimony doesn't waver and he doesn't run away from the endless childish, personal attacks from the critics and the antis.  I hardly ever engage in discussion here because...what's the point?  People try to have discussions about such simple things as great conference talks, but the perpetually-pissed-off can't resist rushing in to moan and groan and attack with no regard to relevancy or truth.  Who is really being self-righteous here?  The critics cling more feverishly to their newfound "god" than most church-going folk.

This board is becoming more and more like the ex-member sites where all you see is vitriol from people who hate the church and have nothing better to do with their lives than wallow in their anger and arrogance.  I expect it's just a matter of time before this board becomes exactly like those other sites.

I left Judaism for the church.  I can't think of any worthwhile, sensible reason to hang out on Jewish discussion boards for the purpose of attacking and disparaging the members and their faith.  For what purpose?  I found something that had truth I hadn't encountered before and I now I have a different life.  That doesn't make what I left behind bad.  That doesn't give me reason or justification for trying to tear down someone else's faith or the people who practice that faith.  Why in the world would I be angry at them?  Why would I try to destroy that?  There is much good and beauty there, why would it bother me in the slightest that everyone else didn't leave with me?

I cannot imagine walking around in life feeling so threatened by people who are members of a church that I disagree with, that I will go out of my away to attack and judge and try to cause harm to those members.

No, the self-righteousness I see here is that of the ex-members who have a desperate need to convince everyone else that they are "right" and better somehow and that their new religion of anti-Mormonism makes them far superior to the silly lesser beings who remain steadfast in their beliefs even through the trials and tribulations that life throws at them.

 

 

[Jeanne]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ah yes the mall.  A favorite for the proud and self righteous to ignore and criticize those who have honest objections to it.

 

 

And I even added a smiley face.  Lighten up Scott!  It is so nice to be put in my place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[salgare]

4 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I left Judaism for the church.  I can't think of any worthwhile, sensible reason to hang out on Jewish discussion boards for the purpose of attacking and disparaging the members and their faith.  For what purpose?

Cool.  They still consider you a Jew correct?

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Did you write the bolded sentence with a straight face?

You crow that you "strive not to judge" in the very same post (amongst many others written by you" wherein you slam and judge Scott.  You seem really bothered by people who are faithful to their beliefs.

Or did you really mean to write "I won't judge those who criticize the church like I do, because...you know...that's awesome!".

I have a lot of admiration for Scott.  His testimony doesn't waver and he doesn't run away from the endless childish, personal attacks from the critics and the antis.  I hardly ever engage in discussion here because...what's the point?  People try to have discussions about such simple things as great conference talks, but the perpetually-pissed-off can't resist rushing in to moan and groan and attack with no regard to relevancy or truth.  Who is really being self-righteous here?  The critics cling more feverishly to their newfound "god" than most church-going folk.

This board is becoming more and more like the ex-member sites where all you see is vitriol from people who hate the church and have nothing better to do with their lives than wallow in their anger and arrogance.  I expect it's just a matter of time before this board becomes exactly like those other sites.

I left Judaism for the church.  I can't think of any worthwhile, sensible reason to hang out on Jewish discussion boards for the purpose of attacking and disparaging the members and their faith.  For what purpose?  I found something that had truth I hadn't encountered before and I now I have a different life.  That doesn't make what I left behind bad.  That doesn't give me reason or justification for trying to tear down someone else's faith or the people who practice that faith.  Why in the world would I be angry at them?  Why would I try to destroy that?  There is much good and beauty there, why would it bother me in the slightest that everyone else didn't leave with me?

I cannot imagine walking around in life feeling so threatened by people who are members of a church that I disagree with, that I will go out of my away to attack and judge and try to cause harm to those members.

No, the self-righteousness I see here is that of the ex-members who have a desperate need to convince everyone else that they are "right" and better somehow and that their new religion of anti-Mormonism makes them far superior to the silly lesser beings who remain steadfast in their beliefs even through the trials and tribulations that life throws at them.

 

 

Thank you.  Thank you very much. 

[Steve Noel]

I have only been here a few days, but it is becoming evident to me that this is not the best place to learn about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a previous post Storm Rider brought up the wide range of both LDS & non-LDS heterodoxy here. I have also been cautioned about this from another member through private messaging.  I joined under the assumption that I would be mostly interacting with "mainstream" Mormons. Boanerges mentioned in that same thread that LDS.net would be a better place for getting an orthodox LDS viewpoint (he wrote "heterodox," but I think he meant orthodox). So I will primarily be interacting over there. From what I've seen thus far there are some solid LDS folks here who know their stuff. I don't know if that is the case over there. I may chirp in from time to time here, but probably not a whole lot. Thanks.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's possible to call someone "self righteous" and then later say you strive not to judge.  

I said I strive not to.  I did not say I succeed at it.

[Rivers]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One of my favorite quotes from the general conference so far, from Bishop W. Chrisopher Waddell of the Presiding Bishopric:

 

More like the great and spacious comment section.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Did you write the bolded sentence with a straight face?

You crow that you "strive not to judge" in the very same post (amongst many others written by you" wherein you slam and judge Scott.  You seem really bothered by people who are faithful to their beliefs.

Or did you really mean to write "I won't judge those who criticize the church like I do, because...you know...that's awesome!".

I have a lot of admiration for Scott.  His testimony doesn't waver and he doesn't run away from the endless childish, personal attacks from the critics and the antis.  I hardly ever engage in discussion here because...what's the point?  People try to have discussions about such simple things as great conference talks, but the perpetually-pissed-off can't resist rushing in to moan and groan and attack with no regard to relevancy or truth.  Who is really being self-righteous here?  The critics cling more feverishly to their newfound "god" than most church-going folk.

This board is becoming more and more like the ex-member sites where all you see is vitriol from people who hate the church and have nothing better to do with their lives than wallow in their anger and arrogance.  I expect it's just a matter of time before this board becomes exactly like those other sites.

I left Judaism for the church.  I can't think of any worthwhile, sensible reason to hang out on Jewish discussion boards for the purpose of attacking and disparaging the members and their faith.  For what purpose?  I found something that had truth I hadn't encountered before and I now I have a different life.  That doesn't make what I left behind bad.  That doesn't give me reason or justification for trying to tear down someone else's faith or the people who practice that faith.  Why in the world would I be angry at them?  Why would I try to destroy that?  There is much good and beauty there, why would it bother me in the slightest that everyone else didn't leave with me?

I cannot imagine walking around in life feeling so threatened by people who are members of a church that I disagree with, that I will go out of my away to attack and judge and try to cause harm to those members.

No, the self-righteousness I see here is that of the ex-members who have a desperate need to convince everyone else that they are "right" and better somehow and that their new religion of anti-Mormonism makes them far superior to the silly lesser beings who remain steadfast in their beliefs even through the trials and tribulations that life throws at them.

 

 

 Did you bother to read the rest of my post where I said Scott and others ma be right?

 

the rest of your post is simply such a distortion of so much of what I have shared about my own personal journey and searching for truth that it is not worth a response.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Teancum

[salgare]

12 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I have only been here a few days, but it is becoming evident to me that this is not the best place to learn about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a previous post Storm Rider brought up the wide range of both LDS & non-LDS heterodoxy here. I have also been cautioned about this from another member through private messaging.  I joined under the assumption that I would be mostly interacting with "mainstream" Mormons. Boanerges mentioned in that same thread that LDS.net would be a better place for getting an orthodox LDS viewpoint (he wrote "heterodox," but I think he meant orthodox). So I will primarily be interacting over there. From what I've seen thus far there are some solid LDS folks here who know their stuff. I don't know if that is the case over there. I may chirp in from time to time here, but probably not a whole lot. Thanks.

Hey Steve, yea it sounds like lds.net is a better fit for you.  But also realize that most regular critics on this site were TBM all their lives until they "learned about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." that they never heard at church (or lds.net).

[Okrahomer]

14 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I have only been here a few days, but it is becoming evident to me that this is not the best place to learn about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a previous post Storm Rider brought up the wide range of both LDS & non-LDS heterodoxy here. I have also been cautioned about this from another member through private messaging.  I joined under the assumption that I would be mostly interacting with "mainstream" Mormons. Boanerges mentioned in that same thread that LDS.net would be a better place for getting an orthodox LDS viewpoint (he wrote "heterodox," but I think he meant orthodox). So I will primarily be interacting over there. From what I've seen thus far there are some solid LDS folks here who know their stuff. I don't know if that is the case over there. I may chirp in from time to time here, but probably not a whole lot. Thanks.

All the best Steve Noel.  I've appreciated your sincere and fair-minded contribution here.

[Steve Noel]

9 minutes ago, salgare said:

Hey Steve, yea it sounds like lds.net is a better fit for you.  But also realize that most regular critics on this site were TBM all their lives until they "learned about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." that they never heard at church (or lds.net).

I do not know what TBM stands for. Could you explain please?

[Calm]

True blue Mormon/testimony bearing Mormon

I can't always watch videos from lds.org on my ipad so I am guessing this shows the story of where it came from:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-05-0603-preparation-of-joseph-f-smith-true-blue-through-and-through?lang=eng

Edited April 4, 2016 by Calm

[salgare]

8 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I do not know what TBM stands for. Could you explain please?

As Calm notes, typically a Temple Recommend dedicated orthodox Mormon.  This site is infamous for driving TBM's that come across disturbing information and coming with questions into critics.

It is not a safe sight if you are a struggling TBM.

[Steve Noel]

4 minutes ago, salgare said:

As Calm notes, typically a Temple Recommend dedicated orthodox Mormon.  This site is infamous for driving TBM's that come across disturbing information and coming with questions into critics.

It is not a safe sight if you are a struggling TBM.

I see. I have read some Evangelical critics of Mormonism in the past that most LDS would probably label anti-Mormon. People like Walter Martin, James White, a little of the Tanner's, Marvin Cowon, and Richard Abanes. In recent years I have seen several Evangelicals criticize these Mormon critics. Now I am trying to get an accurate understanding of the LDS Church for myself.

[stemelbow]

I admit it's hard to put the faithful church member in our day as the humble person taking mockery from others.  It feels like to me mockery comes from Church members as much as it comes  at Church members, and really perhaps even more so. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I see. I have read some Evangelical critics of Mormonism in the past that most LDS would probably label anti-Mormon. People like Walter Martin, James White, a little of the Tanner's, Marvin Cowon, and Richard Abanes. In recent years I have seen several Evangelicals criticize these Mormon critics. Now I am trying to get an accurate understanding of the LDS Church for myself.

It can be tough. Salgare is a critic himself who has a very negative perception of the LDS church, so his ideas about TBM are not without bias. 

There have been critics who have become TBM as well, for example. 

If you hang around for a while you'll be able to figure posters out and see who is most trustworthy in terms of being able to speak for mainstream LDS belief. 

[salgare]

6 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I see. I have read some Evangelical critics of Mormonism in the past that most LDS would probably label anti-Mormon. People like Walter Martin, James White, a little of the Tanner's, Marvin Cowon, and Richard Abanes. In recent years I have seen several Evangelicals criticize these Mormon critics. Now I am trying to get an accurate understanding of the LDS Church for myself.

Well this might be a good place for you if its study.  There is a spectrum of "members" here  from New Order Mormons (google their site I could get in trouble here for doing so), to Old School Orthodox Mormons, to Nuanced Mormons (an up and coming thing).  Now the truly orthodox here will label the likes of me an anti-mormon, while actually Anti-Church.incorported would be more like it (I hold to the believe the Church is in apostasy).  It is seldom that Evangelical anti-mormons actually post here that often.  They end up banned.  Thus you end up with a blend of those whom they allow to stay based on how well we can hold our tongue.  There is a totally non-moderated board with mostly inactive Mormons (like myself, name still on the roles) or those that have resigned or been excommunicated etc.  For study, I would frequent this board, the nom board and the board not to be spoken of to get a full spectrum feel of the church.   lds.net is going to give you a totally whitewashed view of the church.  What used to be heatedly referred to as "Chapel Mormons" (not in the know) verses "Internet Mormons" those in the know and who frequent these sights. 

Hope this helps.

 

[salgare]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It can be tough. Salgare is a critic himself who has a very negative perception of the LDS church, so his ideas about TBM are not without bias. 

There have been critics who have become TBM as well, for example. 

If you hang around for a while you'll be able to figure posters out and see who is most trustworthy in terms of being able to speak for mainstream LDS belief. 

Well, I not sure if bluebell is suggesting I'm not trustworthy, but I worked twice a week in the Mormon Temple for over eight years as an Ordinance worker and supervisor of Ordinance workers in almost all areas.  I have studied the Restored Gospel as much as some and more than most.  I'm upfront to where I stand.  Most regular critics here are in a similar situation.

I doubt there is a question that you could ask me that I could not give a fairly in-depth reply to.  Once again similar with the other critics here.  Like I already mentioned most critics here are deeply involved in Mormonism and have been all our lives.  My wife is TBM, my adult children are TBM for an example.  The Church is not something that one just walks away from.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you.  Thank you very much. 

I don't think you got my joke. Teancum Suggested I leave the building. That made me think of the cliche "Elvis has left the building."  

So I responded, "thank you, thank you very much," because that's what Elvis used to say at his concerts when the audience applauded. 

For a while, it was common for Elvis impersonators to say that while impersonating Elvis. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It can be tough. Salgare is a critic himself who has a very negative perception of the LDS church, so his ideas about TBM are not without bias. 

There have been critics who have become TBM as well, for example. 

If you hang around for a while you'll be able to figure posters out and see who is most trustworthy in terms of being able to speak for mainstream LDS belief. 

I'm not fond of all the labeling.  Anyone new to the whole world we've set up in regards to labels, and neatly categorizing people is terribly unfair.  I hope this steve guy catches on with that.  In fact, he should totally ignore the labeling so he can draw his own conclusions.  No one wants to be minimized just as salgare's response to bluebell suggested.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, salgare said:

Well, I not sure if bluebell is suggesting I'm not trustworthy, but I worked twice a week in the Mormon Temple for over eight years as an Ordinance worker and supervisor of Ordinance workers in almost all areas.  I have studied the Restored Gospel as much as some and more than most.  I'm upfront to where I stand.  Most regular critics here are in a similar situation.

I doubt there is a question that you could ask me that I could not give a fairly in-depth reply to.  Once again similar with the other critics here.  Like I already mentioned most critics here are deeply involved in Mormonism and have been all our lives.  My wife is TBM, my adult children are TBM for an example.  The Church is not something that one just walks away from.

I'm not saying you are not trustworthy. What I'm saying is that how you view the church (as a critic) is not how a TBM views it.  

If Steve is interested in how believing members view the church and its doctrines, your point of view would not be as helpful to him regardless of how long you used to believe (no disrespect intended). 

I'm sure Steve can relate as he would probably not view his religious beliefs the same way as someone who has left his faith, and he would probably rather have someone (who is interested in understanding his beliefs more accurately) talk to a believer than an ex-believer, no matter how trustworthy the ex believer was. 

[salgare]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not saying you are not trustworthy. What I'm saying is that how you view the church (as a critic) is not how a TBM views it.  

If Steve is interested in how believing members view the church and its doctrines, your point of view would not be as helpful to him regardless of how long you used to believe (no disrespect intended). 

I'm sure Steve can relate as he would probably not view his religious beliefs the same way as someone who has left his faith, and he would probably rather have someone (who is interested in understanding his beliefs more accurately) talk to a believer than an ex-believer, no matter how trustworthy the ex believer was. 

What you will see here Steve is that the apologists (bluebell in this case) hold to an old apologetic history of attacking individuals to discount the issues they present.  In two posts, bluebell has accused me of not being trustworthy, of being biased, that her view of the church is more valuable than mine, and that I have left my faith.  The last one triggered some anger, but I counted to ten.

But I'm not clear on what Steve is looking for.  I gathered it was discovery.  What exactly are you looking for Steve?

[Jeanne]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think you got my joke. Teancum Suggested I leave the building. That made me think of the cliche "Elvis has left the building."  

So I responded, "thank you, thank you very much," because that's what Elvis used to say at his concerts when the audience applauded. 

For a while, it was common for Elvis impersonators to say that while impersonating Elvis. 

I did get it.  Love Elvis  I replied this way because I figured I wouldn't get in any hot water and still put my thought across without being such a stinker and horrible person that was implied by Raingirl.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Jeanne

[salgare]

Steve,

Also consider that I have encouraged you to get a diverse view of Mormonism from at least three sources that are deeply vested in it.

What you will find with apologists is they will always make the critic the enemy, attack their character and encourage you to listen to none other than them.

That should be a big red flag to anyone.

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, salgare said:

Steve,

Also consider that I have encouraged you to get a diverse view of Mormonism from at least three sources that are deeply vested in it.

What you will find with apologists is they will always make the critic the enemy, attack their character and encourage you to listen to none other than them.

That should be a big red flag to anyone.

If that were her intention (which I don't believe it was) you are kind of making her case for her. Bluebell says things straight up and doesn't write read between the lines posts.