Jeanne Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Other than UtahTexan and perhaps one or two others, I'm hard-pressed to think of any "very devout LDS people" over there. As far as hurting people, my impression is that saying harmful things is pretty much the order of the day there. For that reason, I've seen it referred to as "the Mormon Defamation Board." That said, I'm unaware of him having hurt a lot of people over there -- unless you consider their being angered when their abrasiveness is countered as hurting them. Do you really think that's the reason I'm speaking up for him? Because he gives me rep points? sigh. Whatever. no you really like him..and that is okay. Like I say Scott, I wish him well..I hope he is/will be happy. I had to block him only because he was preventing me from having a discussion on this board for which I value highly. I am done. Went way off the thread here. You have a wonderful day.
Tacenda Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) 23 hours ago, rockpond said: True. It's just that I thought we had standards on this board... standards that kept it more civil and productive than some of the others out there. That's what has kept me engaged here. It's disappointing to see the behavior UtahTexan has exhibited on this thread not be called out by others. And then to have someone like Scott come in and tell us to "grow up"... I just hope that isn't indicative of the direction the board is headed. What bothers me is that if CB has these unChristlike behaviors, why does he get a story told about him in GC? I guess the GA's really aren't infallible or the spirit was out to lunch. Edited October 13, 2016 by Tacenda 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: What bothers me is that if CB has these unChristlike behaviors, why does he get a story told about him in GC? I guess the GA's really are infallible or the spirit was out to lunch. That's a bridge too far in my opinion. I would hope a bit of childish behavior on the internet isn't enough to condemn us or we are all in pretty deep trouble. 2
Tacenda Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: That's a bridge too far in my opinion. I would hope a bit of childish behavior on the internet isn't enough to condemn us or we are all in pretty deep trouble. You're right, I got a little heated.
sunstoned Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 13 hours ago, CV75 said: As you pointed out earlier, historical records of disavowed teachings are available. But for those who look to the future, the disavowal and unequivocal condemnation of racism serve perfectly well and make the right points in a more constructive manner than you would suggest, sufficient for the elect from the four quarters of the earth (the elect meaning anyone who hears the Lord’s voice and hardens not their hearts). This has been the case since OD-2 came about in 1978. A supplementary organizational apology to anyone offended by and focused on the past will not make an elect person out of one who is not; it simply doesn’t work that way. Ruminating over past disavowed and condemned offenses until an apology is made is not what the elect do, and apologies don’t satisfy them anyway! I am thinking we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe no one, elect or otherwise, is above an apology. That is part of the process of repenting and doing better. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2016 Author Posted October 13, 2016 50 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I am thinking we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe no one, elect or otherwise, is above an apology. That is part of the process of repenting and doing better. Assuming an apology is owed, who do you expect to give it? No one alive today is responsible for the priesthood ban. 1
CV75 Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 9 hours ago, sunstoned said: I am thinking we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe no one, elect or otherwise, is above an apology. That is part of the process of repenting and doing better. It's way too early agree to disagree, LOL. I too believe no one is above repenting or giving or receiving an apology. Apology to the offended might be part of the regretful / sorrowful acknowledgement and restitution steps of repentance where a sin has been committed against someone. It might also be a gracious gesture to amend a social offense or a failure. Since you hold it to apply to the former: Sin is the willful disobedience to God's commandments or failure to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth. There is no evidence of sin on the part of the Church or her leaders in relation to the ban or in the promulgation of disavowed theories. I’m not sure it is reasonable for anyone to call the Church to repentance any more than it is to sue President Monson for perpetuating lies to secure tithing revenue. Should one expect an apology for the social failure represented by “all racism, past and present, in any form” (where its application did not constitute sin requiring repentance) -- and that you are not calling for – I do not think it is possible (meaning functional or effective) for an organization to apologize to its society or its society’s members as their mores mutually evolve. I also understand why people conflate the two forms of apology! 2
stemelbow Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I would expect a comment like this to come from someone who defines success in terms of numbers only. President Nelson apparently does not. I did not say that. But the number of baptism is a measure. To say our goal is to increase joy is fine but for clarity's sake it has no objective measure. We would never know if our goal is reached or what we're shooting for exactly. We're just trying to move forward. I have a good example on this, at least for me it is. Some years ago when I first noted that the number of convert baptisms are going down (which trend has continued to this day) I got in response the notion that our convert baptisms these days are better than they used to be. I wondered how we knew that. "Well", was the response, "our retention rates have gotten better". That could be but there is a lot to consider here. Meetings houses throughout the world have increased in availability over the years. Maybe our retention seems better because we are able to reach more people in terms of more easily getting them to meetings. "well", came the response, "we know our conversions are better because we have less and can manage them better". In the end, I realized we simply don't know what we're talking about. Sure we can point to things like baptisms being conducted under false pretenses--like getting a bunch of kids to come play a game and then baptizing them afterwards or during. But how do we know none of those resulted in genuine conversions? Many likely did. How do we know a conversion today is meaningful? We guess a bit. We say, "well we were more thorough and got them involved in the ward quickly". Fine. We've done that in our local area and I don't know one conversion over the past year that has stuck. Most have left again, if not all. So, sure we can say our goal is not a number and it is to increase joy. That's fine. But realize we can't measure that. We can try to suggest joy is increased by baptizing people. But then we're back to square one. the only way to measure joy, if that is the case is to count the number of baptisms. And as has been pointed out for years, that number has gone down, year after year, particularly as you rate it as a percentage of total membership, and total missionaries. That could very well mean, then, our influence of increasing joy in the world has decreased, and the trend is continuing downward. 16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I already spoke to this in a prior post, but I'll endeavor to put it another way now: If my goal is to increase the number of members in the Church, I'll use any means I can that I think will bring that about, regardless of whether I help people to truly become converted in the process. I would thus have no qualms, for instance, about caving in to social pressure regarding worldly trends if I saw that as a means of increasing the membership numbers in the Church. On the other hand, if my goal is to bring joy to people, I will focus my efforts on helping them truly become converted to the gospel, with the expectation that ultimately their conversion will cause them to desire to be baptized by one having authority and thus enter into sacred covenants with the Lord. Sure. Sincere effort in conversion is better than insincere. No one in their right mind would question that. I think the better way to put it is our goal is to increase conversions through baptisms but we should do so with the objective of working to find sincere conversions. To baptize for the sake of baptizing has never been our intent, even if at times we know some have sought baptisms for the sake of baptisms and we also know such a thing will happen going forward.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2016 Author Posted October 13, 2016 8 hours ago, stemelbow said: Sure. Sincere effort in conversion is better than insincere. No one in their right mind would question that. I think the better way to put it is our goal is to increase conversions through baptisms but we should do so with the objective of working to find sincere conversions. To baptize for the sake of baptizing has never been our intent, even if at times we know some have sought baptisms for the sake of baptisms and we also know such a thing will happen going forward. If no one in their right mind would question that, why is it that I so often see the notion expressed here and elsewhere that we need to alter or abandon certain of our values to make the Church more appealing in the 21st century or to millennials or whatever? 1
sunstoned Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 13 hours ago, CV75 said: It's way too early agree to disagree, LOL. I too believe no one is above repenting or giving or receiving an apology. Apology to the offended might be part of the regretful / sorrowful acknowledgement and restitution steps of repentance where a sin has been committed against someone. It might also be a gracious gesture to amend a social offense or a failure. Since you hold it to apply to the former: Sin is the willful disobedience to God's commandments or failure to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth. There is no evidence of sin on the part of the Church or her leaders in relation to the ban or in the promulgation of disavowed theories. I’m not sure it is reasonable for anyone to call the Church to repentance any more than it is to sue President Monson for perpetuating lies to secure tithing revenue. Should one expect an apology for the social failure represented by “all racism, past and present, in any form” (where its application did not constitute sin requiring repentance) -- and that you are not calling for – I do not think it is possible (meaning functional or effective) for an organization to apologize to its society or its society’s members as their mores mutually evolve. I also understand why people conflate the two forms of apology! ^rep point for this^
stemelbow Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If no one in their right mind would question that, why is it that I so often see the notion expressed here and elsewhere that we need to alter or abandon certain of our values to make the Church more appealing in the 21st century or to millennials or whatever? Well I think you're reading people wrong. It's not about abandoning to be more appealing so much as changing to be more loving, to be more open and to be less hateful. It is about embracing that which is good and adding to the good of the Church more good and eschewing the pharisaic or rameumptum-likeness of the Church. Edited October 14, 2016 by stemelbow 2
Jeanne Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Well I think you're reading people wrong. It's not about abandoning to be more appealing so much as changing to be more loving, to be more open and to be less hateful. I agree. Sometimes it is as easy asking oneself "What would Jesus do?".
JLHPROF Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I agree. Sometimes it is as easy asking oneself "What would Jesus do?". And then looking at what Jesus actually did and said. If we ask ourselves what Jesus would do but we don't actually know what he did and said then odds are we will come to the wrong answer. Edited October 14, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
Calm Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 19 minutes ago, BigBang said: I am a mormon discussions board apostate worshiper of Satan visiting your MDDB just for today. So we have only 23 and a half more hours to enjoy your extremely erudite posting style? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 15, 2016 Author Posted October 15, 2016 2 hours ago, BigBang said: Nemesis, I just wanted to make a comment on the news section, that's all, but it is not letting me. Not sure if you are Nemesis, but it is obvious that you are a mod. Thank you for your time! Goodbye! How is it obvious to you that she is a mod? (She's not, by the way.) 1
CV75 Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 On 10/13/2016 at 10:50 PM, sunstoned said: ^rep point for this^ Now some folks might then distinguish between the organization, its leaders, and its members. Seeing how the organization cannot apologize for social failure, they might turn to the leaders (or members) to apologize for their personal failure to exemplify a better, yet-future social standard than the norm in which they lived and shared with all. It is a double-standard when those who enjoy the privilege of living in an age where their society upholds a higher standard expect an apology from their peers in behalf of those who lived in a less enlightened time. 1
Calm Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: How is it obvious to you that she is a mod? (She's not, by the way.) If I was a mod, the guy would have been already banned as soon as I saw how he was wasting board space and people's time by causing 'new post' alerts without content.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 15, 2016 Author Posted October 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, Calm said: If I was a mod, the guy would have been already banned as soon as I saw how he was wasting board space and people's time by causing 'new post' alerts without content. Yes, I was quite annoyed by that myself. Perhaps you should be a mod.
Calm Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes, I was quite annoyed by that myself. Perhaps you should be a mod. For the sake of the board, of course! There has never been any question about that obviously. For my sanity and ambition to accomplish other things in life besides hanging out on the internet, absolutely, fundamentally, essentially never, ever, infinitely nil chance of that happening. 1
2PairsofCletes Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 I know this is an old thread. I have been reading up on President Nelson to get a better idea how he may take the church going forward. I loved this about the goal not being about increasing numbers. Then, BAM, out of the past, an old adversary pops us. None other than TexanKnight, now UtahKnight, himself. Interesting to see that he has rejoined the church, but I see his attitude hasn't changed much in dealing with others. He just jumped from one church to another, but doesn't seem to have changed much.
The Nehor Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 24 minutes ago, 2PairsofCletes said: I know this is an old thread. I have been reading up on President Nelson to get a better idea how he may take the church going forward. I loved this about the goal not being about increasing numbers. Then, BAM, out of the past, an old adversary pops us. None other than TexanKnight, now UtahKnight, himself. Interesting to see that he has rejoined the church, but I see his attitude hasn't changed much in dealing with others. He just jumped from one church to another, but doesn't seem to have changed much. Can’t you start your own thread to pick a fight in? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2018 Author Posted February 18, 2018 45 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Can’t you start your own thread to pick a fight in? 45 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Can’t you start your own thread to pick a fight in? Brand new participants are not permitted to start new threads until they have reached a certain number of posts. But your point is well taken.
2PairsofCletes Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 Not picking a fight. If anything, as I have been reading thru, he seems to be happier now, which is a good thing, even if his style hasn't changed.
Jeanne Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 13 minutes ago, 2PairsofCletes said: Not picking a fight. If anything, as I have been reading thru, he seems to be happier now, which is a good thing, even if his style hasn't changed. I might know who you are talking about...
Recommended Posts