Wishing for answers

[juliann]

Salgare, I'm completely lost. I do not follow this board closely and tend to pop in and out. So I haven't read everything you have said everywhere. If you are talking about the Chapel Mormon wiki entry it was done back when the term was in vogue. it isn't likely to be revisited because nobody really uses those terms. We have thousands of wiki entries that address current issues and then go dormant when the issues do. They mostly get edited when errors or new information are pointed out to us. Again, we maintain our credibility by being accurate with data/facts (interpretations will always produce disagreements .) We always make changes when critics point out actual errors. I suspect that annoyed Runnells to no end, as one example.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, salgare said:

I linked the FairMormon article, which in my understanding has always been the stance taken...

As I hoped to point out in my previous post, I think FairMormon might have painted themselves in a corner on this old, not so often heard anymore categorization....

But you referred to FM switching over their position as opposed to "always been the stance taken"?  I am sorry for my slowness here, I am really trying to understand.

[Calm]

Editing problems, so think of this as attached to above post:

Add-on:  I think I may have figured it out and why it took so long was that the idea was so contrary to the FM I know.

If (big if, please confirm) you mean FM held/holds the position that there is no diversity among faithful LDS, this would be a fundamental misunderstanding of FM's position.  FM itself has always been a very diverse (in many contexts) organization while also being very unitied on the mission of defending our LDS faith.

[Jim Stiles]

36 minutes ago, juliann said:

...
IMO, the biggest changes happened when we combined forces and used the Bible right back at the hostile EVs, as well as early Christian history. We were much more informed and more skilled in our approach. Over the years, they dropped away just as we have seen on this board.
...

I have yet to be banned.  I think it is not so much a matter of evangelicals dropping away as it is evangelicals being banned when they mention forbidden topics.

[Calm]

We get less and less EVs dropping by in the first place.  Some are indeed banned because of refusing to abide by board rules, a relatively easy requirement if the examples of certain long term posters are indicative.  But there are a number over the years who have left by their own choice, the mods haven't really completely banned too many posters percentagewise over the years.

[RevTestament]

45 minutes ago, juliann said:

You had a quote which wouldn't go away.

Hi Juliann, if you put your mouse pointer over that quote box just to the right of the area above the move and drag pointer in the top right, you will get instructions. However, your mouse pointer can be anywhere on the quote box - then just hit <ctrl> and the right mouse button, and you will get a popup allowing you to delete the quote box. It seems you can no longer do it by using the delete key or the like.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Hi Juliann, if you put your mouse pointer over that quote box just to the right of the area above the move and drag pointer in the top right, you will get instructions. However, your mouse pointer can be anywhere on the quote box - then just hit <ctrl> and the right mouse button, and you will get a popup allowing you to delete the quote box. It seems you can no longer do it by using the delete key or the like.

Any suggestions for those of us using an Ipad?

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Any suggestions for those of us using an Ipad?

I don't use an iPad, so I'm not sure. I will play with my son's later, and let you know if I find a way...

[Jim Stiles]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

We get less and less EVs dropping by in the first place.  Some are indeed banned because of refusing to abide by board rules, a relatively easy requirement if the examples of certain long term posters are indicative.  But there are a number over the years who have left by their own choice, the mods haven't really completely banned too many posters percentagewise over the years.

Some may have left when it became impossible to compose or edit posts using the BBcode.  

Edited April 9, 2016 by Jim Stiles

[salgare]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Only if you are including attributes we share in common in the diverse attributes category, but there is no need for that.  For example I see my family both as "one" and "diverse" at the same time.  It all depends on what attribute or behaviour one is discussing.  Human behaviour is complex both on an individual and group level, thus I can say without any feeling I am bending the truth that I am terminally shy while being very aware I am participating in highly extrovertive behaviours.  Groups function in much the same way in that the group overt characteristics will vary depending on context.

I agree with this Calm.  I've only ever tried to label some subset of attributes that are "stereotypical" (i.e. error prone, not precise, generalization) for purposes of discussion.  By design or simply defensive reaction the old Chapel/Internet comparisons of old or my suggested others anew is vehemently opposed to by most apologists it seems. 

I've mentioned this several times since coming back here.  These labels are like a picture telling a 1000's words.  For those in the know, like here I can quickly say jlhProf has fundamentalist leanings and MFB has strong nuanced leanings, and everyone is on the same page.  The interesting part is that jlhProf will proudly accept the picture, while MFB vehemently opposes his picture to be taken.

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

Some may have left when it became impossible to compose or edit posts using the BBcode.  

Daniel woods (the only one around that pops into my mind) is too much of a trooper to let a little annoying formatting issue to drive him away.

[salgare]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

Salgare, I'm completely lost. I do not follow this board closely and tend to pop in and out. So I haven't read everything you have said everywhere. If you are talking about the Chapel Mormon wiki entry it was done back when the term was in vogue. it isn't likely to be revisited because nobody really uses those terms. We have thousands of wiki entries that address current issues and then go dormant when the issues do. They mostly get edited when errors or new information are pointed out to us. Again, we maintain our credibility by being accurate with data/facts (interpretations will always produce disagreements .) We always make changes when critics point out actual errors. I suspect that annoyed Runnells to no end, as one example.

Hmm, happened to pop in within the hour of my starting an op and being thread banned and put on limited.  Boy the regular guards must have been lighting up those alerts.

I see there really is no reason to try and bring you up to date with an effort I had undertaken over two forums, several threads and several days to help Steve get a feel for the lay of the land.  You might note the OP was addressed to him.  All along the lines of the OP's topic.

It would have been nice if you could have given me the respect of at least finding out what I have been posting or heaven forbid, communicating with me in private.

whatever ...

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, salgare said:

 

I've mentioned this several times since coming back here.  These labels are like a picture telling a 1000's words. 

 

I don't have a problem with labels if they are identified as only applying to a certain set of attributes and if the picture they paint is relatively accurate.

Something the Chapel/Internet label never did.  Even back then, there was widespread usage of the internet among all LDS, one just has to point to lds.org and how often it was and is being used to demonstrate and almost all those LDS that were being labeled as Internet Mormons would be found in the chapel on Sundays; there was no higher percentage of 'Internet Mormon' on the internet and higher percentage of 'Chapel Mormon' in the chapel when both alleged categories are present in borh places; then there was the problem with the study that was supposedly going to show a statistical difference between a Utah neighbourhood and those who hung out on ZLMB and the FAIR board...there was no such statistical difference actually shown.  And very ridiculous was the attached claim that the division being represented was amounting to a schism within the Church.

One can reject poorly constructed labels without rejecting the complete use of labels.

[salgare]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

We get less and less EVs dropping by in the first place.  Some are indeed banned because of refusing to abide by board rules, a relatively easy requirement if the examples of certain long term posters are indicative.  But there are a number over the years who have left by their own choice, the mods haven't really completely banned too many posters percentagewise over the years.

Its not the EVs that are a problem, its the Ex, Nom, Inactive etc Mormon posters that are problematic.

I was first banned from MADD for simply being a member of the Trailer Park.  When Russell was banned from MDDB (whatever the heck that was all about), I asked to come back and was let in.  I was banned again within a month or two for no reason anyone could put their fingers on.  Coming back this last time, by invitation at MDB I am now silenced from my own thread and permanently leashed.  When I came back this last time I asked for at least the decency and respect to contact me and let me know my opinions and first hand experiences in Mormonism are not welcome here anymore and I would quietly leave.

Very disappointing.

[Calm]

Strong nuanced leanings...I think you are overstating the usefulness of this label.  I see JLHPROF's beliefs as nuanced as MFB as are a number of other posters.  Nuanced is not what categorizes MFB's beliefs from others.  I don't even know if you are labeling the actual beliefs or the process of thought or decision making.

Fundamentalist for JLHPROF works better in the sense that he pays attention to early teachings, but I see him as quite atypical to most usages of the term "fundamentalist" in my experience.

One of the problems with labels is ensuring everyone is using them the same way; otherwise they do not contribute to shorthanding the conversation at all and may end up confusing it.  

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 0:23 PM, DBMormon said:

except he lost hope in the church being true.  I still hope and still encourage people to stay.

Yea but you are pushing the envelope.

You have to know the LDS Church leadership frowns on vocal dissent.  I honor those who are willing to be vocal.  I am not at this point and I air my issues here and with a few I trust and am close to.  But I sit in silence most of the time.  I may get to a different point.  But simply look at the responses you get from the likes of SMAC and others who are down the line TBMs.  This is what you can expect from leaders and GAs.,

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 1:35 PM, smac97 said:

There is no good faith in these inquiries.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why?  Can you see into DB's mind and heart?  Are they lacking good faith simply because you personally don't have an issue with the questions he asks?

The LDS Church really is a narrow institution isn't it.  And really let's be honest, open inquiry is not welcome.

[Jeanne]

58 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Hi Juliann, if you put your mouse pointer over that quote box just to the right of the area above the move and drag pointer in the top right, you will get instructions. However, your mouse pointer can be anywhere on the quote box - then just hit <ctrl> and the right mouse button, and you will get a popup allowing you to delete the quote box. It seems you can no longer do it by using the delete key or the like.

Thank you!  This happens to be a lot..a quote with no quote..

[Jeanne]

20 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

Not true......you contribute because you want to..it is a donation.....no one makes you....so...you are wrong

But what happens if I don't pay tithing or donations to the church...I am wrong again. 

[juliann]

32 minutes ago, salgare said:

Its not the EVs that are a problem, its the Ex, Nom, Inactive etc Mormon posters that are problematic.

I was first banned from MADD for simply being a member of the Trailer Park.  When Russell was banned from MDDB (whatever the heck that was all about), I asked to come back and was let in.  I was banned again within a month or two for no reason anyone could put their fingers on.  Coming back this last time, by invitation at MDB I am now silenced from my own thread and permanently leashed.  When I came back this last time I asked for at least the decency and respect to contact me and let me know my opinions and first hand experiences in Mormonism are not welcome here anymore and I would quietly leave.

Very disappointing.

What?? Where did this come from.....it has nothing to do with what I thought we were talking about. And I did put some effort into trying to explain what I thought you asked. So much for that, I suppose.

(BTW, this line of reasoning only works if "defenders" of the faith hadn't also been banned in no small number. )

Edited April 9, 2016 by juliann

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Maybe it was a challenge for white members to see for  themselves how to treat the black members. 

The Gospel would have taught them that without all banning.  That is the thing..it goes against the Gospel and the core of loving one another.

[CV75]

On 4/8/2016 at 3:03 AM, DBMormon said:

These are sincere questions I have that would go a long way to resolve my doubt and even more my frustration.

***

What questions do you have that you wish would be honored?

The dictionaries define frustration as the feeling of being angry, upset or annoyed, especially because of one’s inability to change or achieve something, such as when something doesn't go as he expects. We know the perpetuation of these feelings is not of God. When they color our questions, such questions cannot be answered on the Lord’s terms.

“…The Church is making great efforts to be transparent with the records we have, but after all we can publish, our members are sometimes left with basic questions that cannot be resolved by study. …Some things can be learned only by faith (see D&C 88:118). Our ultimate reliance must be on faith in the witness we have received from the Holy Ghost.”  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/opposition-in-all-things?lang=eng

***

All my questions, as far as I can tell, have been honored.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

The Gospel would have taught them that without all banning.  That is the thing..it goes against the Gospel and the core of loving one another.

The Gospel was/is taught to one and all. Priesthood is a different issue. IE; Women can not hold the Priesthood at this time. But they are taught the Gospel. The Sister Missionaries are some of the best Missionaries we have.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Gospel was/is taught to one and all. Priesthood is a different issue. IE; Women can not hold the Priesthood at this time. But they are taught the Gospel. The Sister Missionaries are some of the best Missionaries we have.

We are not talking gender here..we are unfortunately talking about the color of skin.  But if we were talking about gender, why are some of the best Missionaries without the Priesthood?  It is a confusing circle.

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, salgare said:

 

Again thank you for a thoughtful reply.  I wish I would have spent more time here following you.

You are welcome..

 

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA