Serious Question: Has the Church Ever Admitted to Making a Mistake?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

While it is true that I post on other boards...99.9% of my online activity is here. 

I actually like your posts, and agree with you a lot. But 99.9%? You have 1606 posts here and 1418 posts over there... Just sayin'

[Johnnie Cake]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I actually like your posts, and agree with you a lot. But 99.9%? You have 1606 posts here and 1418 posts over there... Just sayin'

Well let me restate that in a more succinct manner.  99.9% of my "current" online activity is here.  I've been a member there for many more years than here...so yes since I began to actively participate on boards...I've posted overall more there and other places than here...but...for probably the last few years...the vast majority of my online activity is spent on MD&D.  No offence to them...but I like it here...it stimulates my brain and makes me think.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

No, you are generally pretty friendly to the people on the board.  I don't view you in that light at all.  It is not the people here that you have a problem with for the most part...it is the church.  Johnnie, when it comes to the church, are you really a "seeker of truth" or are a seeker of fault?  Are you seeking to hear a good word, or to disclose an empty religion?  To find the sacred, or expose the naked?

The key only works when you use it.  If your intent is to find truth in the church as you claim, then you are going about it all wrong.  The truth is, you will find whatever it is you are looking for in the church.  Truth is here if you want it, and so are the mistakes and imperfections.  If you want to broaden your perspective, you have to get yourself out of the trench that you have dug for yourself.  It is a comfortable trench for you...very predictable.  If any one wants to know where Johnnie stands, it is in that trench over yonder, digging around for more mistakes and lies.  

...but the key is in your hand, and the door is over here...out of that trench. 

Is your heart open?  Are you really open to believing in "Santa" again?  Or are you positive that you have seen your parents "taking a bite from the cookies and putting the gifts out"?  If there is NO room for "Santa", then your heart isn't really open at all.

I am not offended at all and I actually find some of your posts and threads quite interesting, but you do come off as a bit of a bully, not to the posters, but to the church.  What I know is that there are two wolves battling within each of us, and the wolf that survives is the one that you feed - one wolf is hope, the other wolf is doubt.  What are you feeding here Johnnie?  Alma 32 doesn't work on doubt.  The key is hope...use it.  That requires uncertainty.  If you can admit that you are uncertain, then there is room for hope. 

I hope so, but you don't seem to be aware of how you come off.  It seems to me that you are stuck in the trenches of doubt.  Keep digging around the same places and you will keep finding the same dirt.

 

 

 

 

I've had the night to reflect on your comments.  And on second thought I actually agree to some of your well meaning but perceived by me as condescending thoughts...my activity here is a distraction and probably does not add to the over all intended "spirit" of the board...so I've decided to take a break.  Its a beautiful day today and I'm going to go skiing.  Have a great day Y'all

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm going to ignore the condescension implied in your post...as I did in your earlier one...  Ok maybe not.  pogi, you don't know me nor my journey...but you really have the advantage in that you are making your post on MD&D and I can't really reply as I would desire to reply.  Maybe its just me...but you're condescension is getting stuck in my throat.  I believe that you are coming from an honest and well meaning place...but to me...your comments come off as very patronizing and superior.  I don't expect you to see them that way or to see the world or the church for that matter from my perspective...so I'll just leave it at that. I've said too much. Time for admin to lock this puppy ( the thread not me) down and tuck it into bed.

No condescension implied at all, and I'm sorry if I'm coming of as patronizing and superior.  Johnnie, all I am doing is pointing out a pattern that I see.  I am not even saying you are wrong all of the time.  I think you make a lot of fair points, but if you truly are searching for truth in the church/gospel, your approach is not going to work.  It can't be recognized that way and will never sprout.  We can debate if the seed is good or bad all day long, but we will never see eye to eye because it is not about the seed, it is about the soil.  After briefly reviewing your posting history here, I don't see the required amendment of 'hope' in your soil, I see the opposite.  If all you want is debate, that is fine and I don't have a problem with debate, but if you want to know what debate cannot reveal, then something is going to have to change in your approach.  Take it for what it is worth.  I hope I don't offend you, but if you are here to find truth, you have to be open to outside suggestion.  You critique my faith day after day, so I hope that you are open to take a gentle critique yourself - not out of spite or resentment, but out of hope to see eye to eye someday.

Edited February 15, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Or, he can stay and talk. We can handle it

I hope it doesn't appear as if I want him out.  I'm just suggesting a fresh approach to the seed.

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I've had the night to reflect on your comments.  And on second thought I actually agree to some of your well meaning but perceived by me as condescending thoughts...my activity here is a distraction and probably does not add to the over all intended "spirit" of the board...so I've decided to take a break.  Its a beautiful day today and I'm going to go skiing.  Have a great day Y'all

Thanks Johnnie, I am sorry if I have made you feel like a distraction.  I am not concerned so much about the spirit of the board.  This is a place for discussion about topics like this.  I just hope that through discussion that we can eventually go a little deeper, beyond the warts of the church and get to the heart it all - because that's where things really start to happen.

It's a beautiful day for the slopes.  Wish I could be up there with ya.   Have fun!

Edited February 15, 2017 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

I hope it doesn't appear as if I want him out.  I'm just suggesting a fresh approach to the seed.

Of course it comes across that way. Your tone is very patronizing. You are preaching at him.

Some day I hope "faithful" members will recognize the deleterious impact their tone and words have on those who are struggling to stay engaged with the church at some level. Preaching at them will rarely work.

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'll just leave this here...

Its funny and sad at the same time...

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course it comes across that way. Your tone is very patronizing. You are preaching at him.

Some day I hope "faithful" members will recognize the deleterious impact their tone and words have on those who are struggling to stay engaged with the church at some level. Preaching at them will rarely work.

Yup, because the Church experience really can be hell for some people, even for some really good, conscientious,  seeking-the-Spirit-of-Christ people.

I don't think I understood that until our experience this past year. I had to be hurt to learn it.

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course it comes across that way. Your tone is very patronizing. You are preaching at him.

Some day I hope "faithful" members will recognize the deleterious impact their tone and words have on those who are struggling to stay engaged with the church at some level. Preaching at them will rarely work.

If that was "preaching", that was the worst dam* sermon that I have ever given.  I felt like it was more of a gentle kick in the pants and rattle of the cage to stop looking at the warts if he is truly looking for the heart of the church.  Seems reasonable to me.  If we are going to debate, lets get to the heart of the matter.  

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

If that was "preaching", that was the worst dam* sermon that I have ever given.  I felt like it was more of a gentle kick in the pants and rattle of the cage to stop looking at the warts if he is truly looking for the heart of the church.  Seems reasonable to me.  If we are going to debate, lets get to the heart of the matter.  

 

Who are you to give him a kick in the pants?

Like I said, patronizing.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well let me restate that in a more succinct manner.  99.9% of my "current" online activity is here.  I've been a member there for many more years than here...so yes since I began to actively participate on boards...I've posted overall more there and other places than here...but...for probably the last few years...the vast majority of my online activity is spent on MD&D.  No offence to them...but I like it here...it stimulates my brain and makes me think.

I agree.
I only lurk on the "other board'.  There is precious little intellectual stimulation and a whole lot of appeal to ridicule and ad hominem attacks.

I also enjoy your posts here (most of the time).  If we are never challenged on our beliefs and forced to think critically about them our testimonies are likely built on sand.
Which is why the Church not openly admitting mistakes is such an issue for some.
But then a bigger issue is that we seem to have difficulty in determining with any absolute certainty where an actual mistake was made.

(How was that segue back to the OP topic?   )

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Who are you to give him a kick in the pants?

Like I said, patronizing.

Is it patronizing to try to get someone to see from a different perspective by questioning their approach?  Is that not what we do here...ask questions and debate?  What is wrong with suggesting a little introspection?  Why is it fair for someone to chronically pick apart and fault-find my church, but when I gently suggest a different approach to truth seeking...I am the bad guy?  I don't get it. 

If he really wants to find truth in the church as he claims, why is it patronizing to offer suggestions on where and how to look?  Again, if you want to find the heart of a person, you don't chronically complain about their warts.  That's all I am saying.  What is wrong with suggesting that "you may be looking in the wrong places"?  Are we so thin skinned that we can't take constructive criticism in our quest for truth?  If his approach does not change, the same pattern will be repeated over and over with the same predictable results.  Nothing will change. 

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If we are never challenged on our beliefs and forced to think critically about them our testimonies are likely built on sand.

Agreed.  Just be careful, you may be accused of being a patronizing and condescending preacher if you suggest that others think critically about their approach to truth, or challenge their beliefs and practices...unless of course it is directed at a believing Mormon...then it's fair game.

Edited February 15, 2017 by pogi

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Is it patronizing to try to get someone to see from a different perspective by questioning their approach?  Is that not what we do here...ask questions and debate?  What is wrong with suggesting a little introspection?  Why is it fair for someone to chronically pick apart and fault-find my church, but when I gently suggest a different approach to truth seeking...I am the bad guy?  I don't get it. 

If he really wants to find truth in the church as he claims, why is it patronizing to offer suggestions on where and how to look?  Again, if you want to find the heart of a person, you don't chronically complain about their warts.  That's all I am saying.  What is wrong with suggesting that "you may be looking in the wrong places"?  Are we so thin skinned that we can't take constructive criticism in our quest for truth?  If his approach does not change, the same pattern will be repeated over and over with the same predictable results.  Nothing will change. 

Ok I'm back....great day on the mountain...here's a picture I took (below).  It was beautiful and the snow was great as well. Pretty much had the place to myself.

Oh Great I had a long well thought out response to this then hit the enter tab and it all deleted... so this is my half hearted 2nd attempt to respond.

So back to you pogi,  I believe you are a good well intentioned person with only good in your heart and only desiring what you believe is best for me.  So let me try to help you understand why your approach is so patronizing, off putting and comes off as holier than thou.  You come from the position that your worldview is the correct/true.  Which is a fine, we all believe we stand on firm ground but instead of presenting your arguments to counter what I may say...you council me rather than offering a counter argument to mine.

I don't really want to make a big deal out of this...I believe you are coming from a good place...we all need a little introspection from time to time but that in and of itself is also the problem.  There is something baked into the Mormon culture which makes members believe they have not only a right but the responsibility to preach, council, tell, proclaim, expound...you choose the verb...to anyone not of your faith and it comes from what members believe is a higher moral ground than everyone else and frankly its exhaustively offensive to non members and former believers.  Its the YM president who councils the young girl for having worn a sleeveless dress to prom, which is a non church event no less, its the member who shame a famous member on FB for wearing something they find inappropriate, its the member who at a PTA meeting calls everyone brother and sister, its the mother who won't allow her children to play at a non-members house. Its the belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong. And then you council me on how to approach my quest for truth as if your cookie cutter church provide method  is superior to the one that works for me.

Again I want to emphasize that I believe you were well intended...trust me I've been there in your shoes...but just oblivious to how off putting your approach was.

I generally have thick skin...but when it come to preaching and being told what I should and shouldn't do with regards to Mormonism I have bpundaries at what I will allow...and I have no problem telling anyone to (insert the word of your choice).

So use this advise as a learning opportunity or discard it.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Who are you to give him a kick in the pants?

Like I said, patronizing.

If someone comes on the board and expresses a desire to have something in their life, then that opens up the opportunity for others to tell them how they might get it.

It is probably always patronizing to give advice because there is an assumption one knows a better way.  But if it appears that someone is asking for advice, isn't it nicer to try and give it to the best of one's ability rather than ignore the appeal.

Pogi may have misinterpreted comments he saw as about wanting something as an opening to talk about how one can get it, but it appears to me that he was trying to match the intent, not just stepping into lecture because that is what he does (there are some posters who do that, I don't think Pogi is one, but like me is a helper).

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

If someone comes on the board and expresses a desire to have something in their life, then that opens up the opportunity for others to tell them how they might get it.

It is probably always patronizing to give advice because there is an assumption one knows a better way.  But if it appears that someone is asking for advice, isn't it nicer to try and give it to the best of one's ability rather than ignore the appeal.

Pogi may have misinterpreted comments he saw as about wanting something as an opening to talk about how one can get it, but it appears to me that he was trying to match the intent, not just stepping into lecture because that is what he does (there are some posters who do that, I don't think Pogi is one, but like me is a helper).

I agree...it just didn't have that effect

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So back to you pogi,  I believe you are a good well intentioned person with only good in your heart and only desiring what you believe is best for me.  So let me try to help you understand why your approach is so patronizing, off putting and comes off as holier than thou.  You come from the position that your worldview is the correct/true.  Which is a fine, we all believe we stand on firm ground but instead of presenting your arguments to counter what I may say...you council me rather than offering a counter argument to mine.

I don't really want to make a big deal out of this...I believe you are coming from a good place...we all need a little introspection from time to time but that in and of itself is also the problem.  There is something baked into the Mormon culture which makes members believe they have not only a right but the responsibility to preach, council, tell, proclaim, expound...you choose the verb...to anyone not of your faith and it comes from what members believe is a higher moral ground than everyone else and frankly its exhaustively offensive to non members and former believers.  Its the YM president who councils the young girl for having worn a sleeveless dress to prom, which is a non church event no less, its the member who shame a famous member on FB for wearing something they find inappropriate, its the member who at a PTA meeting calls everyone brother and sister, its the mother who won't allow her children to play at a non-members house. Its the belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong. And then you council me on how to approach my quest for truth as if your cookie cutter church provide method  is superior to the one that works for me.

Again I want to emphasize that I believe you were well intended...trust me I've been there in your shoes...but just oblivious to how off putting your approach was.

Do you like to read negative tabloids? ...me neither.

Do you enjoy divisive political commentary, where one media source relentlessly critiques/criticizes a politician? ...me neither (unless Trump is the target of course - no, even that gets to be excessively annoying).

These media sources often think of themselves as "truth seekers", rather than bullies. Often attempting to make ugly accusations/criticism more acceptable by framing them as questions rather than statements. They often hide their condescending tone behind sanitized "honest" questions like, "has ___ ever admitted to making a mistake?"

Many times, what these media sources say is true...I don't know about you, but their approach still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

What if one of these media sources began publishing thousands of comments about a cherished friend of yours on diferent websites? They publish critiques hiden behind sanitized questions...thousands of them. Your friend is a man with a heart of gold with ideas that could change the world if people could look beyond the warts. He has a few skeletons in his closet, he has made some mistakes, and his approach is not allways polished and palatable by all, but this particular media source likes to take advantage of every opportunity and is silent/blind to the greatness behind the warts.

Would it be condescending, putting-off, preachy, holier-than-thou, and patronizing of you to interject in the comment section and say, "look, if you really want to know the big truth about my friend; if you want to learn his heart, you are going about it all wrong"? No doubt the media source will take offense, as they are "simply asking honest questions" and seeking for "truth".  They will say things like "instead of counseling me, why don't you just answer the question?" Would this not erk you? Because from their plentiful history and critisism of your friend, you don't see it as an honest question at all, but another critisism hidding behind a sterilized question.  Saying things like, "Serious question: is that an ugly wart on your face?" is really no different from saying "that is an ugly wart on your face."  Acute critiques are fine, but chronic finger pointing is a problem.

Is it possible that your approach here, at times, may be perceived by others as a form of negative tabloidism by persistent, subtle, badgering of my church/faith through sanitized questions? I can't speak for others, but that is true for me. That is why I interjected because it seemed so blatant in this particular thread. It seemed so disingenuous that I found it completely unpalatable.  My interjection was perceived by you as a "baked" response on my part to "preach, counsil, tell, proclaim, expound..." because that is not only a mormon's "right", but "responsibility" to do so; because I believe that "I am right and everyone esle is wrong." That is so far from reality man.

Quote

I generally have thick skin...but when it come to preaching and being told what I should and shouldn't do with regards to Mormonism I have bpundaries at what I will allow...and I have no problem telling anyone to (insert the word of your choice).

I have boundaries too, and you crossed mine with this thread.  And I too have no problem calling someone out.  I have no problem with people asking honest, hard questions, but I do have a problem with patterns of badgering hidden behind question marks.

Quote

So use this advise as a learning opportunity or discard it.

I will be sure and not take that in a patronizing way, but will consider your advise as you consider mine.

This is a perception problem.  Whether my perception of your intention is right or wrong doesn't matter, and whether your perception of my intention is right or wrong doesn't really matter.  The fact is that we have each perceived of each other's intentions in a negative light, and that is a problem because perceptions form our realities.  So, perhaps we can each learn from our mistakes here in what led to problematic perceptions by others.  

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

If someone comes on the board and expresses a desire to have something in their life, then that opens up the opportunity for others to tell them how they might get it.

It is probably always patronizing to give advice because there is an assumption one knows a better way.  But if it appears that someone is asking for advice, isn't it nicer to try and give it to the best of one's ability rather than ignore the appeal.

Pogi may have misinterpreted comments he saw as about wanting something as an opening to talk about how one can get it, but it appears to me that he was trying to match the intent, not just stepping into lecture because that is what he does (there are some posters who do that, I don't think Pogi is one, but like me is a helper).

Thanks Calm.  You are right, I don't typically interject to point out fault.  I am a helper at heart, but nobody is perfect and I am guilty in this particular case.  I tried to do it in a constructive way, but that just made me look like a self-righteous, patronizing ***.  Oh well, we learn from our mistakes.  I don't know why but this particular thread just set me off a little, perhaps it was the culmination effect at work.  

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you like to read negative tabloids? ...me neither.

Do you enjoy divisive political commentary, where one media source relentlessly critiques/criticizes a politician? ...me neither (unless Trump is the target of course - no, even that gets to be excessively annoying).

These media sources often think of themselves as "truth seekers", rather than bullies. Often attempting to make ugly accusations/criticism more acceptable by framing them as questions rather than statements. They often hide their condescending tone behind sanitized "honest" questions like, "has ___ ever admitted to making a mistake?"

Many times, what these media sources say is true...I don't know about you, but their approach still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

What if one of these media sources began publishing thousands of comments about a cherished friend of yours on diferent websites? They publish critiques hiden behind sanitized questions...thousands of them. Your friend is a man with a heart of gold with ideas that could change the world if people could look beyond the warts. He has a few skeletons in his closet, he has made some mistakes, and his approach is not allways polished and palatable by all, but this particular media source likes to take advantage of every opportunity and is silent/blind to the greatness behind the warts.

Would it be condescending, putting-off, preachy, holier-than-thou, and patronizing of you to interject in the comment section and say, "look, if you really want to know the big truth about my friend; if you want to learn his heart, you are going about it all wrong"? No doubt the media source will take offense, as they are "simply asking honest questions" and seeking for "truth".  They will say things like "instead of counseling me, why don't you just answer the question?" Would this not erk you? Because from their plentiful history and critisism of your friend, you don't see it as an honest question at all, but another critisism hidding behind a sterilized question.  Saying things like, "Serious question: is that an ugly wart on your face?" is really no different from saying "that is an ugly wart on your face."  Acute critiques are fine, but chronic finger pointing is a problem.

Is it possible that your approach here, at times, may be perceived by others as a form of negative tabloidism by persistent, subtle, badgering of my church/faith through sanitized questions? I can't speak for others, but that is true for me. That is why I interjected because it seemed so blatant in this particular thread. It seemed so disingenuous that I found it completely unpalatable.  My interjection was perceived by you as a "baked" response on my part to "preach, counsil, tell, proclaim, expound..." because that is not only a mormon's "right", but "responsibility" to do so; because I believe that "I am right and everyone esle is wrong." That is so far from reality man.

I have boundaries too, and you crossed mine with this thread.  And I too have no problem calling someone out.  I have no problem with people asking honest, hard questions, but I do have a problem with patterns of badgering hidden behind question marks.

I will be sure and not take that in a patronizing way, but will consider your advise as you consider mine.

This is a perception problem.  Whether my perception of your intention is right or wrong doesn't matter, and whether your perception of my intention is right or wrong doesn't really matter.  The fact is that we have each perceived of each other's intentions in a negative light, and that is a problem because perceptions form our realities.  So, perhaps we can each learn from our mistakes here in what led to problematic perceptions by others.  

 

Ok (taking deep breath) I appreciate our dialogue. I sense your sincerity.  From the back and forth we've had over this matter, I sense that you feel that I post here with ulterior motives to somehow ask questions in a disingenuous manner to irritate the posters and frame my posts in such a manner that my they will  paint the church in the worst possible manner and in a less than respectful light.  I wish I was that smart.

I'm a non believer, I am also a former 1000% believer, High Councilman, Bishopric, YM Pres, Elders Quorum Pres and even Mission AP. (none of that matters...I just wanted you to understand that at one time I was very committed to the church) I've settled on conclusions...but I'm more than willing to test my conclusion and subject them to scrutiny...I chose to do that here.  I ask question's & post from my heart and from the various thoughts that continually run through my mind on any given day.  I make a very sincere attempt to self edit my posts so that they meet the Board guidelines.  Are many of my post provocative?  I hope so.  Are they written to garner attention and a robust discussion Yup.  Does everyone enjoy them I'm going to guess from your continued reaction...not so much.  I can't and won't please everyone and I'm ok with that.  I suggest you just ignore me in the future

[MormonVideoGame]

On 2/12/2017 at 2:15 PM, bluebell said:

I don't mean the ban.  I'm talking about the reasons given for the ban. 

notice it says "church leaders", it doesn't say "prophets" and "apostles" 

Church leaders can also be Bishops, Stake President, you name it. 

It's never specific, many church statements are ambiguous. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ok (taking deep breath) I appreciate our dialogue. I sense your sincerity.  From the back and forth we've had over this matter, I sense that you feel that I post here with ulterior motives to somehow ask questions in a disingenuous manner to irritate the posters and frame my posts in such a manner that my they will  paint the church in the worst possible manner and in a less than respectful light.  I wish I was that smart.

I'm a non believer, I am also a former 1000% believer, High Councilman, Bishopric, YM Pres, Elders Quorum Pres and even Mission AP. (none of that matters...I just wanted you to understand that at one time I was very committed to the church) I've settled on conclusions...but I'm more than willing to test my conclusion and subject them to scrutiny...I chose to do that here.  I ask question's & post from my heart and from the various thoughts that continually run through my mind on any given day.  I make a very sincere attempt to self edit my posts so that they meet the Board guidelines.  Are many of my post provocative?  I hope so.  Are they written to garner attention and a robust discussion Yup.  Does everyone enjoy them I'm going to guess from your continued reaction...not so much.  I can't and won't please everyone and I'm ok with that.  I suggest you just ignore me in the future

Johnnie, I am going to choose to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I have to say, I am impressed by your ability to sensor yourself on these boards (after witnessing your loosed tongue elsewhere) and keep a mostly respectful dialogue even with accusations placed against you.  

I know that you judge most of us over here at MD&D as being "a extremely dogmatically fixed group of hardcore believers" (from recent post elsewhere), but I just don't see that.  I think we are all pretty open minded and willing to consider other ideas.  We, like you, have "settled on conclusions...but are more than willing to test our conclusions and subject them to scrutiny" on these boards.  You are not that much different from us.  You're just at a different place in the spectrum, but that doesn't make you any less hardcore in your beliefs.  I would suggest that you are perhaps even more "settled" than most of us here, I for one have removed the idea of absolute certainty from my life.  I find it to be too restrictive to the principles of spiritual growth and progression.  I for one welcome different voices and "alternative facts", it gives life to the boards, but I really dislike it when people are not genuine.  I hope that my initial judgement was off (that this thread really is a "serious question" rather than a condescending comment in disguise) and I hope that you prove me wrong. 

Just one final observation...negative tabloids are designed to be "provocative", and "garner attention and robust discussion".  Just thought I'd point that out. Hey, I just thought of a good nick name for you -Mo Tab - as in Mormon Tabloids   I'm just playing around, but you can't deny the parallels in your style with a consistent negative twist, provocative in design, and attention grabbing!

[Johnnie Cake]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Johnnie, I am going to choose to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I have to say, I am impressed by your ability to sensor yourself on these boards (after witnessing your loosed tongue elsewhere) and keep a mostly respectful dialogue even with accusations placed against you.  

I know that you judge most of us over here at MD&D as being "a extremely dogmatically fixed group of hardcore believers" (from recent post elsewhere), but I just don't see that.  I think we are all pretty open minded and willing to consider other ideas.  We, like you, have "settled on conclusions...but are more than willing to test our conclusions and subject them to scrutiny" on these boards.  You are not that much different from us.  You're just at a different place in the spectrum, but that doesn't make you any less hardcore in your beliefs.  I would suggest that you are perhaps even more "settled" than most of us here, I for one have removed the idea of absolute certainty from my life.  I find it to be too restrictive to the principles of spiritual growth and progression.  I for one welcome different voices and "alternative facts", it gives life to the boards, but I really dislike it when people are not genuine.  I hope that my initial judgement was off (that this thread really is a "serious question" rather than a condescending comment in disguise) and I hope that you prove me wrong. 

Judging goes both ways pogi,  What's the common derogatory term designed both as a demeaning joke and as a descriptor of the posters in that board? The Trailer Park is it? While I've never seen you use the term it is often thrown about on this board...and it is an excellent example of the condescending, holier than thou attitude some hold on this board.  I've always tried to be respectful of this board and its members...I always refer to it as MD&D and not by its other name....although I have at times expressed frustration over what I've considered the capriciousness of how some board policies are enforced. <---a comment that will probably get me in trouble yet again.

While you are welcome to read anything I've ever written online just as anyone is...I only ask that when you cross post my comments, just keep them in context instead of cherry picking for effect.

Quote

Just one final observation...negative tabloids are designed to be "provocative", and "garner attention and robust discussion".  Just thought I'd point that out. Hey, I just thought of a good nick name for you -Mo Tab - as in Mormon Tabloids   I'm just playing around, but you can't deny the parallels in your style with a consistent negative twist, provocative in design, and attention grabbing!

Just when we were beginning to turn a corner...Can you not see the patronizing condescension in your last paragraph? Relegating my posts to negative tabloid trash?  You just had to get in that one last dig right? Maintain your superior POV. But you framed it as a joke so that makes it ok, right? You've put me in my place and now you can pose for the photo.  I will totally push back on your use of descriptor words like "consistent negative twist"  I reject that my posts are twisted or spun in such a manner so as to be negative or tabloid trash...as for provocative or attention grabbing...I certainly hope so

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Jeanne]

Pogi...why are you checking in elsewhere?? 

[Tacenda]

On 2/15/2017 at 8:26 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Well let me restate that in a more succinct manner.  99.9% of my "current" online activity is here.  I've been a member there for many more years than here...so yes since I began to actively participate on boards...I've posted overall more there and other places than here...but...for probably the last few years...the vast majority of my online activity is spent on MD&D.  No offence to them...but I like it here...it stimulates my brain and makes me think.

This place is addicting isn't it?!? I think the MDDB has such variety, nothing beats it! By variety I want to emphasize the part that has believers of every walk of life. Lots of flavor here.