The Imposition of Belief and Doctrine; when is it a bridge too far?

[carbon dioxide]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

The idea that one's own church is the only true church may appeal to the ego, but it is harmful to the spirit.

Why would a person belong to a church they did not believe it was true?  Since no church is identical to another and they are all different, one church does have to be more true than another.  However just because one believes they belong to the only true church does not mean other churches are necessarily bad or evil or don't have truth.  It does not have to be harmful to the spirit and its not an ego thing.  For me its the opposite.  Being LDS usually does not appeal to my ego.  My ego is put in check because I know how flawed I am and need the atonement.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Every male that openeth the womb is called holy to the Lord. So in that sense we are all divine. But Christ was not the first begotten Son of the Father before He was begotten. I don't like the word "divine" because it is really too nonspecific. Anyway Christ was once a plain child of God like us.

Yeah, no.  That is not how I understand God the Father or his Son or even the Holy Ghost.  Isn't it interesting how LDS have varied beliefs.  

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Lots of people. The idea that one's own church is the only true church may appeal to the ego, but it is harmful to the spirit.

Lots of  people don't believe their church is equally true to all others. There are some 40,00 different Christian variations of  religions in the US alone. Not to speak of dozens of distinct varieties of Islam, and Judaism. That's just the Abrahamic Sects.

Being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never appealed to my ego. It has given me all the more reason to repent of my many sins.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Every male that openeth the womb is called holy to the Lord. So in that sense we are all divine. But Christ was not the first begotten Son of the Father before He was begotten. I don't like the word "divine" because it is really too nonspecific. Anyway Christ was once a plain child of God like us.

Jesus Christ has always been divine, before becoming the "begotten Son", he was the chosen, the anointed, the creator of heaven and earth...he was never "just a son of God" like we are. I like the word divine, or Divine, as it fits him perfectly, as He is perfect. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why would a person belong to a church they did not believe it was true?

 

Most people wouldn't (I'm bracketing my usual concerns with the grammar of saying a church can be true)

 

Quote

Since no church is identical to another and they are all different, one church does have to be more true than another.  However just because one believes they belong to the only true church does not mean other churches are necessarily bad or evil or don't have truth. 

If one belongs to the only true church, it follows that no other churches are true.

 

 

Quote

It does not have to be harmful to the spirit and its not an ego thing.  For me its the opposite.  Being LDS usually does not appeal to my ego.  My ego is put in check because I know how flawed I am and need the atonement.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that people who believe this are egomaniacs. But it does appeal to the ego - it makes you feel special. You've found The Truth. Not a truth, not truth for you, but The Truth! You're chosen, uniquely favored by God! That's why it persists.

I find that most members of the church are humble about themselves as people, in my own interactions. But there is some institutional pride there as well. That's why the "chosen generation" thing is so popular, decade after decade.

But, maybe that's preferable to personal pride. It probably is.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Gray

[LittleNipper]

On 7/6/2017 at 4:28 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

That is unfortunate and certainly difficult, and sounds more like opinion than any doctrinal argument. I know that those we love can hurt us more than any stranger could. I often wonder if anyone thinks comments like that could ever be the foundation for a constructive outcome. So sorry that such has happened, been there and hurt their far too often. 

Galatians 3 Living Bible (TLB)

1 Oh, foolish Galatians! What magician has hypnotized you and cast an evil spell upon you? For you used to see the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death as clearly as though I had waved a placard before you with a picture on it of Christ dying on the cross. ² Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by trying to keep the Jewish laws? Of course not, for the Holy Spirit came upon you only after you heard about Christ and trusted him to save you. ³ Then have you gone completely crazy? For if trying to obey the Jewish laws never gave you spiritual life in the first place, why do you think that trying to obey them now will make you stronger Christians? ⁴ You have suffered so much for the Gospel. Now are you going to just throw it all overboard? I can hardly believe it!

⁵ I ask you again, does God give you the power of the Holy Spirit and work miracles among you as a result of your trying to obey the Jewish laws? No, of course not. It is when you believe in Christ and fully trust him.

⁶ Abraham had the same experience—God declared him fit for heaven only because he believed God’s promises. ⁷ You can see from this that the real children of Abraham are all the men of faith who truly trust in God.

^8-9 What’s more, the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God would save the Gentiles also, through their faith. God told Abraham about this long ago when he said, “I will bless those in every nation who trust in me as you do.” And so it is: all who trust in Christ share the same blessing Abraham received.

¹⁰ Yes, and those who depend on the Jewish laws to save them are under God’s curse, for the Scriptures point out very clearly, “Cursed is everyone who at any time breaks a single one of these laws that are written in God’s Book of the Law.” ¹¹ Consequently, it is clear that no one can ever win God’s favor by trying to keep the Jewish laws because God has said that the only way we can be right in his sight is by faith. As the prophet Habakkuk says it, “The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.” ¹² How different from this way of faith is the way of law, which says that a man is saved by obeying every law of God, without one slip. ¹³ But Christ has bought us out from under the doom of that impossible system by taking the curse for our wrongdoing upon himself. For it is written in the Scripture, “Anyone who is hanged on a tree is cursed” (as Jesus was hung upon a wooden cross^[a]).

¹⁴ Now God can bless the Gentiles, too, with this same blessing he promised to Abraham; and all of us as Christians can have the promised Holy Spirit through this faith.

¹⁵ Dear brothers, even in everyday life a promise made by one man to another, if it is written down and signed, cannot be changed. He cannot decide afterward to do something else instead.

¹⁶ Now, God gave some promises to Abraham and his Child. And notice that it doesn’t say the promises were to his children, as it would if all his sons—all the Jews—were being spoken of, but to his Child—and that, of course, means Christ. ¹⁷ Here’s what I am trying to say: God’s promise to save through faith—and God wrote this promise down and signed it—could not be canceled or changed four hundred and thirty years later when God gave the Ten Commandments. ¹⁸ If obeying those laws could save us, then it is obvious that this would be a different way of gaining God’s favor than Abraham’s way, for he simply accepted God’s promise.

¹⁹ Well then, why were the laws given? They were added after the promise was given, to show men how guilty they are of breaking God’s laws. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of Christ, the Child to whom God’s promise was made. (And there is this further difference. God gave his laws to angels to give to Moses, who then gave them to the people; ²⁰ but when God gave his promise to Abraham, he did it by himself alone, without angels or Moses as go-betweens.)

^21-22 Well then, are God’s laws and God’s promises against each other? Of course not! If we could be saved by his laws, then God would not have had to give us a different way to get out of the grip of sin—for the Scriptures insist we are all its prisoners. The only way out is through faith in Jesus Christ; the way of escape is open to all who believe him.

²³ Until Christ came we were guarded by the law, kept in protective custody, so to speak, until we could believe in the coming Savior.

²⁴ Let me put it another way. The Jewish laws were our teacher and guide until Christ came to give us right standing with God through our faith. ²⁵ But now that Christ has come, we don’t need those laws any longer to guard us and lead us to him. ²⁶ For now we are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ, ²⁷ and we who have been baptized into union with Christ are enveloped by him. ²⁸ We are no longer Jews or Greeks or slaves or free men or even merely men or women, but we are all the same—we are Christians; we are one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And now that we are Christ’s we are the true descendants of Abraham, and all of God’s promises to him belong to us.

 

Even the Apostles lost their cool on occasion. 

[carbon dioxide]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

If one belongs to the only true church, it follows that no other churches are true.

 

No other church would be completely true but that does not mean they don't have truth or that they are bad or evil. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Galatians 3 Living Bible (TLB)

Even the Apostles lost their cool on occasion. 

Wow, at least the first part of that I could almost read with glasses. Just a word of advice, posting that much scripture at once is a good way to insure little of it gets read, I did so out of respect. A much shorter route to what would be a good example, is the story of Peter. He who struggled often with his Faith, "any faith". After the day having been filled with the Spirit, while walking to the Temple he saw a man begging, who was crippled, his reply was a thing of beauty, "Sliver and gold have I none, but such as I have I give unto thee. In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk" (from memory, so forgive any error). The two of them went into the Temple, and there he called those in the Temple that they were murders, and killed the Son of God. He did so in such a way he converted 100's, and in a manner that he was lucky to baptize them. So to your point, yes the Apostles got angry at time, even Jesus Christ, but there is a difference between "righteous anger" and just "anger" for vanities sake. I fear when I do it, it is just anger. 

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Wow, at least the first part of that I could almost read with glasses. Just a word of advice, posting that much scripture at once is a good way to insure little of it gets read, I did so out of respect. A much shorter route to what would be a good example, is the story of Peter. He who struggled often with his Faith, "any faith". After the day having been filled with the Spirit, while walking to the Temple he saw a man begging, who was crippled, his reply was a thing of beauty, "Sliver and gold have I none, but such as I have I give unto thee. In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk" (from memory, so forgive any error). The two of them went into the Temple, and there he called those in the Temple that they were murders, and killed the Son of God. He did so in such a way he converted 100's, and in a manner that he was lucky to baptize them. So to your point, yes the Apostles got angry at time, even Jesus Christ, but there is a difference between "righteous anger" and just "anger" for vanities sake. I fear when I do it, it is just anger. 

I think that is a good point.  I also think that those were different times and cultures, and that type of preaching may have been more effective back then, but if you preach like that today, you are not likely to turn any hearts.  Just because it was effective for the old apostles in Jerusalem, doesn't mean that it is effective or worthy of emulation today in America.  We need to adapt our teaching methods and approach with the times and cultures. For example, street preaching was extremely effective in Britain in the early church, today however, you are not likely to get a single person to stop and listen to some kids screaming "repentance" on the streets.  

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think that is a good point.  I also think that those were different times and cultures, and that type of preaching may have been more effective back then, but if you preach like that today, you are not likely to turn any hearts.  Just because it was effective for the old apostles in Jerusalem, doesn't mean that it is effective or worthy of emulation today in America.  We need to adapt our teaching methods and approach with the times and cultures. For example, street preaching was extremely effective in Britain in the early church, today however, you are not likely to get a single person to stop and listen to some kids screaming "repentance" on the streets.  

In the culture I grew up in, as Southern Baptist most believe that "hellfire and damnation" preaching is the "only way" to touch people's hearts (and least in Church services) and bring the Holy Spirit. I once while in my teens asked, what do you make of the story of Elliah and the "Still Small Voice", it was not well received. When I point out that the Genesis of such preaching was a style of preaching that Pastors learn and emulated from Black Ministers in Plantation Churches, I was treated like an outcast. It was however a one room Baptist Church in Georgia in the late sixties and seventies. So I can understand how such comments would have been taken (or maybe I was to young to know) in a Church were Black people were not allowed to attend. The odd thing is that I never attended Church with anyone of another race until I became LDS, in 1979. 

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think that is a good point.  I also think that those were different times and cultures, and that type of preaching may have been more effective back then, but if you preach like that today, you are not likely to turn any hearts.  Just because it was effective for the old apostles in Jerusalem, doesn't mean that it is effective or worthy of emulation today in America.  We need to adapt our teaching methods and approach with the times and cultures. For example, street preaching was extremely effective in Britain in the early church, today however, you are not likely to get a single person to stop and listen to some kids screaming "repentance" on the streets.  

In the early days of the Church our Apostles and missionaries used to do so on the steps of Churches back East. A practice that (thankfully) we no longer practice, as I fear such actions only drive wedges. But with such sadness, such activities take place on the streets surrounding Temple Square, every six months. It also happens at Maniti and the Hill Cammorah (hope I spelled that correctly, first time I ever used it in a sentence) and Nauvoo, each year by those who call themselves Ministers. But of the many I know and have debated so often, they are not (thankfully) Ministers of a Church. But of websites devoted to attacking any Faith but their own, and to generate income for these websites. Every sign, every pamphlet, has their website and blog information on how to donate, and the need for such money so they can continue to fight what they deem as our evil. I remember when the Atlanta Temple was having open house in 1983, I was still in the Army, but stationed at Fort Benning, in Columbus Georgia, so I drove up with my family. I invited my parents to come and go through the Temple on tour with us, when they viewed what was going on, on the sidewalk out front, it sickened them. My Father, who was a Baptist Minister was the most outraged that someone would do this outside a place of worship. 

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, no.  That is not how I understand God the Father or his Son or even the Holy Ghost.  Isn't it interesting how LDS have varied beliefs.  

 

3 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Jesus Christ has always been divine, before becoming the "begotten Son", he was the chosen, the anointed, the creator of heaven and earth...he was never "just a son of God" like we are. I like the word divine, or Divine, as it fits him perfectly, as He is perfect. 

You both seem to be presuming that Christ was begotten in this world. There is no scripture which says this. Yes, I differ from other LDS on this point. I believe Yeshua was sent as the first begotten Son because he was begotten in another world. It's a step beyond traditional thinking, but I believe it is scriptural. So Bill I am speaking of before he created this world. There was a time when He was not the first begotten Son. Otherwise the scriptures would be of no effect which say: "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." If you believe He was never begotten, you may as well go back to trinitarianism - no offense. But the scriptures teach He was begotten by the word of God, and now will inherit the title of Eternal Father. Christ changes - He inherits all the Father has. He inherits His name, etc. This is why trinitarianism is unscriptural and is an enemy to Christ - it would make Yeshua the Son forever both past and future. Neither is true.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I think that is a good point.  I also think that those were different times and cultures, and that type of preaching may have been more effective back then, but if you preach like that today, you are not likely to turn any hearts.  Just because it was effective for the old apostles in Jerusalem, doesn't mean that it is effective or worthy of emulation today in America.  We need to adapt our teaching methods and approach with the times and cultures. For example, street preaching was extremely effective in Britain in the early church, today however, you are not likely to get a single person to stop and listen to some kids screaming "repentance" on the streets.  

For at least modern day America and Europe, even adapting our teaching methods may become less effective over time.  In a growing world that does not even believe in God, very little will be able to reach them.  The Moroni promise in 3 Nephi will only become less effective in this world.  It is hard enough to get people to take up the Moroni challenge when they still believe in God.  Why would people ask God if the BOM is true if they don't even believe in God to begin with?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

You both seem to be presuming that Christ was begotten in this world. There is no scripture which says this. Yes, I differ from other LDS on this point. I believe Yeshua was sent as the first begotten Son because he was begotten in another world. It's a step beyond traditional thinking, but I believe it is scriptural. So Bill I am speaking of before he created this world. There was a time when He was not the first begotten Son. Otherwise the scriptures would be of no effect which say: "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." If you believe He was never begotten, you may as well go back to trinitarianism - no offense. But the scriptures teach He was begotten by the word of God, and now will inherit the title of Eternal Father. Christ changes - He inherits all the Father has. He inherits His name, etc. This is why trinitarianism is unscriptural and is an enemy to Christ - it would make Yeshua the Son forever both past and future. Neither is true.

I did not suggest that he is not also "Spiritually begotten", but he was divine from the beginning of measured time, and made creator of all things. My comment was only to address your objection to the word "divine" as a word that discribed him. I fear you misread or misunderstood my remarks. So no I don't think I need to "return to Trinitarianism", I am fine where I am. God our Father lives outside time and space, as does JEHOVAH, and then Yeshua (or Joshua, his earthly name). Scripture is crystal clear that created all things under the Father, and since "time and space" are also created by Him, he is without "beginning of years  or end of time". He as His Father, are, the Alpha and Omega. 

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I did not suggest that he is not also "Spiritually begotten", but he was divine from the beginning of measured time, and made creator of all things. My comment was only to address your objection to the word "divine" as a word that discribed him. I fear you misread or misunderstood my remarks. So no I don't think I need to "return to Trinitarianism", I am fine where I am. God our Father lives outside time and space, as does JEHOVAH, and then Yeshua (or Joshua, his earthly name). Scripture is crystal clear that created all things under the Father, and since "time and space" are also created by Him, he is without "beginning of years  or end of time". He as His Father, are, the Alpha and Omega. 

The Alpha and Omega of this World, yep. The beginning and the end. However, He was begotten within time - "this DAY, I have begotten thee" as the scriptures declare. Neither do the scriptures teach that He created time. He created all things means in terms of physcial stuff we see. But JS brought meaning to that as well - it means organized rather than created from nothing. That is fine. I don't mean to offend. We will just have to disagree I guess - cheers.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

The Alpha and Omega of this World, yep. The beginning and the end. However, He was begotten within time - "this DAY, I have begotten thee" as the scriptures declare. Neither do the scriptures teach that He created time. He created all things means in terms of physcial stuff we see. But JS brought meaning to that as well - it means organized rather than created from nothing. That is fine. I don't mean to offend. We will just have to disagree I guess - cheers.

No one is or was suggesting his earthly life, and the role it played. I am sorry, where have you misunderstood, and what is it you are trying to correct. Since lives does not begin or end here, all comments we of His Divinty before being born as the Son of Man. 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

You both seem to be presuming that Christ was begotten in this world. There is no scripture which says this. Yes, I differ from other LDS on this point. I believe Yeshua was sent as the first begotten Son because he was begotten in another world. It's a step beyond traditional thinking, but I believe it is scriptural. So Bill I am speaking of before he created this world. There was a time when He was not the first begotten Son. Otherwise the scriptures would be of no effect which say: "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." If you believe He was never begotten, you may as well go back to trinitarianism - no offense. But the scriptures teach He was begotten by the word of God, and now will inherit the title of Eternal Father. Christ changes - He inherits all the Father has. He inherits His name, etc. This is why trinitarianism is unscriptural and is an enemy to Christ - it would make Yeshua the Son forever both past and future. Neither is true.

I think you are seeing only a glimmer of truth then jumping to a distortion.  Jesus was always the Son of God, a member of the Godhead, and chosen Savior of this world and all other worlds.  There are no other Saviors for any of God's children.  That is doctrine - you are out in the mysteries and taking things out of context.  I can actually agree with some of what you say when it is stated in context.  

I will stand on what I know to be true based on scripture and my understanding of the Holy Ghost.  

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The Alpha and Omega of this World, yep. The beginning and the end. However, He was begotten within time - "this DAY, I have begotten thee" as the scriptures declare. Neither do the scriptures teach that He created time. He created all things means in terms of physcial stuff we see. But JS brought meaning to that as well - it means organized rather than created from nothing. That is fine. I don't mean to offend. We will just have to disagree I guess - cheers.

Colossians 1:14-17 

¹⁴ It is through His Son that we have redemption — that is, our sins have been forgiven. ¹⁵ He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is supreme over ALL creation, ¹⁶ because in connection with Him were created all things — in heaven and on earth, Visible and Invisible, whether thrones, lordships, rulers or authorities — they have all been created through him and for him. ¹⁷ He existed before ALL things, and He holds EVERYTHING together.

 

Joseph Smith redefined the Bible just as the government redefined marriage. Everything and ALL cannot be redefined as some things, or most things or only material things ---- as some would have it be.  Time is invisible, and I'm fully convinced that GOD created time, space and matter. NOTHING exists that exists without GOD having created and established it.  Anything less is limiting the scope of who/what GOD is and where Mormonism falls short. 

Edited July 8, 2017 by LittleNipper

[smac97]

On 7/6/2017 at 1:55 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

So, as to the long way around question...when do we know when to remain silent about our beliefs as to not seem to aggressive?

Here are some thoughts I posted last December in response to a somewhat similar question (the question was: "What is the best method to carry out some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers/doubters?  When one confronts some sort of negative phenomenon regarding the Church and desires to discuss this phenomenon with believers (such as family or members in the ward) how would one approach this discussion?"):

Quote

Guideline No. 1: Bilateral Allowance for Principled Disagreement

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  I think we all need to allow for the "other guy" to have a substantially different perspective on a given "Mormon" issue, while still giving that person the benefit of the doubt.  A presumption that he/she is speaking/acting in good faith.  That he/she can be a reasonably-informed and intelligent and decent person, even if he/she harbors opinions quite different from your own.

Guideline No. 2: Generalized Respect for the Subject Matter

Nothing will build up walls faster between believers and critics than treating the sincerely- and deeply-held religious beliefs of the Latter-day Saints with contempt, disrespect, mockery, slurs, etc.

...

My personal theory is that many Latter-day Saints adopt that category as the "top-tier" identity for themselves.  There are all sorts of ways we can divvy up our attributes and our roles in society.  For some people, their gender is at or near the top of their self-identity.  For others, it is their racial/ethnic group.  Or their nationality.  Or their sexual orientation.  Or their political affiliation.  Or their profession/career.  Or their artistic endeavors and expressions.  Or their marital/familial role.  And on and on and on.

For many observant Latter-day Saints, however, the "top tier" identity, the principal and most important role they play in life, is inextricably linked to their Mormonism.  That identity is . . . that they are each a "child of God."  That is what they have come to believe and accept.  It is an identity that transcends all others.  And it is a core concept of the teachings of the LDS Church.  So to sneer at that, to gratuitously demean and insult it, is to sneer and demean and insult the most valuable thing about them.

All this does not mean critics cannot critique and criticize our faith and practices and whatnot.  Rather . . . it's a plea to treat our faith with some measure of decorum and dignity, even if you do not share it (or like it).

Guideline No. 3: Be Open to Correction / Give Correction Nicely

There are vast amounts of data about the LDS Church and its history, practices, beliefs, leaders, members, and so on.  None of us have mastered it all.  So we should all be open to correction as to matters of fact (as distinguished from matters of opinion).  

On the flipside, when a person on "the other side" of the argument presents a factually incorrect statement, we can and should offer clarification/correction with respect, patience, and perhaps even kindness.

Guideline No. 4: Be Ready to Apologize / Walk Away

Online conversations about certain topics, like politics or religion, can become heated.  I have found value in owning up to remarks I have made in the heat of the moment, in retracting them where appropriate, in apologizing for them, and so on.  I have also found value in periodically limiting participation in online discussions.  There is so very much more to life than these largely ephemeral discussions.  There are so many additional worthwhile things to do.

...

{A few more thoughts...}

• Don't offer unsolicited criticisms of LDS belief and practice to those who take such things seriously.  The key word here is "unsolicited."  By way of analogy: My wife is a remarkably good and intelligent and spiritual (and fine looking!) woman.  She does, however, have some flaws here and there in her character/behavior.  Nevertheless, I would probably not appreciate some family member or acquaintance approaching me and offering unsolicited criticisms about my wife.  I think a lot of people could understand that sentiment, right?  If so, then take it and apply it to unsolicited criticisms of other people's most sacred and cherished religious beliefs.  The validity of the criticisms pretty much become irrelevant when the criticisms are unsolicited.

• Do not resort to false pretenses when presenting your perspective on a given "negative phenomenon."  I am thinking here of the approach taken by Jeremy Runnels, whose "Letter to a CES Director" simply reeked of bad faith.  He was not asking questions.  He was couching accusations and criticisms as questions.  He was not looking for information.  He was looking for argument.  He was looking to attack.

• Approach such things with an open mind.  The "phenomenon" you have in mind may only have a patina of "negativity" painted on it due to limited information, or because the phenomenon in culturally/sociologically unfamiliar, and hence weird.  Or it may be a genuine "negative phenomenon" but not a dealkiller from the LDS perspective.  Or it may be an unequivocally bad thing (Mountain Meadows springs to mind), and we just have to lump it.

These thoughts pertained to online discussions, but most seem readily adaptable to IRL discussions as well.

One more thought: In American jurisprudence there are laws pertaining to governmental attempts to constrain public "speech."  One set of these doctrines is called "time, place and manner restrictions."  Here is a brief summary:

Quote

The goal of time, place and manner restrictions is to regulate speech in a way that still protects freedom of speech.  While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute, and therefore subject to restrictions. Time, place, and manner restrictions are relatively self-explanatory. Time restrictions regulate when expression can take place; place restrictions regulate where expression can take place; and manner restrictions regulate how expression can take place. A restriction may occur if someone is protesting loudly in front of someone’s house in a neighborhood in the middle of the night, or if someone was sitting in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour, for example. These actions would cause problems for other people, so restricting speech in terms of time, place, and manner addresses a legitimate societal concern.

Now, I would propose that we put aside, for the sake of the current topic, notions about the role of government imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech, and instead consider a scenario in which such restrictions are self-imposed.  Consider how much improved our communications about contested, emotion-laden topics could be if we each of us regulated our own speech in terms of time, place and manner.

Late at night, when one or both parties is tired and stressed and needing to relax, is not a good time to have an argument about . . . well, anything.  A funeral is not the appropriate place for family members to argue divergent opinions about the hereafter, doctrinal disparities, etc.  Thanksgiving Dinner is not the the appropriate venue for Uncle Ralph to bring up a long-simmering argument about who should inherit Grandma's treasured antique desk after she passes.  Don't try to have a substantive debate or argument with someone who is drunk.  And so on and so forth.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Grayned v. The City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972), summarized the time, place, manner concept this way: "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."  I think we as individuals could greatly improve both the form and substance of our discussions about disputed topics if we tailored those discussions in terms of time, place and manner.

Quote

Also when should we be more aggressive when false and damaging doctrines are being preached?

I think the guidelines above cover most situations.  I suppose I would be more "aggressive" when someone seeks to preach "false and damaging doctrines" to those who are within my stewardship (my wife and children, and to a lesser extent my extended family and close friends).

Quote

I recently had a serious falling out over the doctrine of "Calvinism", and the doctrine that Jesus only atoned for the sins of those whom God had already chosen for salvation. This doctrine is called "limited atonement". In my zeal to explain that Jesus Christ atoned for all sins, and that all who choose, my choose salvation, I called "Limited Atonement" the doctrine of demons. 

Yes, that was overzealous.  Self-imposed time/place/manner constraints on speech would help in such circumstances, I think.  (I myself am guilty many times over of making overzealous remarks, so my thoughts here apply to me as well.)

Quote

So...

When do any of you feel imposed upon?

See above.  When a person with an opinion divergent from my own refuses to allow for "principled disagreement" about a topic about which reasonable minds can disagree, and instead adopts a my-way-or-the-highway, you-are-evil/stupid-for-holding-that-opinion type of attitude, then I feel imposed upon.

When people treat my cherished and sacred beliefs with contempt, hatred, ridicule, etc., and do so to my face, with the calculated intent to offend or intimidate or coerce rather than to explain and persuade, then I feel imposed upon.

When people speak of my faith with an arrogant, know-it-all, I-know-your-religious-beliefs-better-than-you-do attitude, then I feel imposed upon.

When people present crass or profane or unfair and unsolicited critiques about some of the sacred aspects of my faith, then I feel imposed upon.

When people resort to deceit or false pretenses when attempting to discuss my faith, then I feel imposed upon.

Quote

When MUST we make a stand?

Always.  Part of our duty as Latter-day Saints is "to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death."  (Mosiah 18:9)

But how we "make a stand" matters.   A lot.  With charity and patience.  And with truth.  And in the appropriate time, place and manner.

Quote

How do we find balance between "Preaching and Teaching"? Ye Southerners will understand the difference in the two. 

Could you clarify this?  I'm not sure what the difference is (I've only visited the South twice, and one of those was Florida).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2017 by smac97

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

In the early days of the Church our Apostles and missionaries used to do so on the steps of Churches back East. A practice that (thankfully) we no longer practice, as I fear such actions only drive wedges. But with such sadness, such activities take place on the streets surrounding Temple Square, every six months. It also happens at Maniti and the Hill Cammorah (hope I spelled that correctly, first time I ever used it in a sentence) and Nauvoo, each year by those who call themselves Ministers. But of the many I know and have debated so often, they are not (thankfully) Ministers of a Church. But of websites devoted to attacking any Faith but their own, and to generate income for these websites. Every sign, every pamphlet, has their website and blog information on how to donate, and the need for such money so they can continue to fight what they deem as our evil. I remember when the Atlanta Temple was having open house in 1983, I was still in the Army, but stationed at Fort Benning, in Columbus Georgia, so I drove up with my family. I invited my parents to come and go through the Temple on tour with us, when they viewed what was going on, on the sidewalk out front, it sickened them. My Father, who was a Baptist Minister was the most outraged that someone would do this outside a place of worship. 

The only thing I can think of is they think the LDS are going to hell if they don't get them out of the church. And they worry the missionaries will baptize their own. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The only thing I can think of is they think the LDS are going to hell if they don't get them out of the church. And they worry the missionaries will baptize their own. 

My guess is they probably do think we are going to hell. But the fear of losing their own, is the biggest concern. They don't want people to receive a BoM, because they know the power of it...I know the power of it, I have felt it and still do. 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The only thing I can think of is they think the LDS are going to hell if they don't get them out of the church. And they worry the missionaries will baptize their own. 

To be accurate of LDS belief. We are the only ones that can go to Hell.

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Colossians 1:14-17 

¹⁴ It is through His Son that we have redemption — that is, our sins have been forgiven. ¹⁵ He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is supreme over ALL creation, ¹⁶ because in connection with Him were created all things — in heaven and on earth, Visible and Invisible, whether thrones, lordships, rulers or authorities — they have all been created through him and for him. ¹⁷ He existed before ALL things, and He holds EVERYTHING together.

 

Joseph Smith redefined the Bible just as the government redefined marriage. Everything and ALL cannot be redefined as some things, or most things or only material things ---- as some would have it be.  Time is invisible, and I'm fully convinced that GOD created time, space and matter. NOTHING exists that exists without GOD having created and established it.  Anything less is limiting the scope of who/what GOD is and where Mormonism falls short. 

This kind of absolute interpretation is silly - typical Greek linear interpretation. Strike one. Obviously He didn't create the Father, nor His own spirit. Strike two. Genesis doesn't say God created the earth from nothing, but the earth was created by God moving His Spirit upon the waters. Strike three. Protestant ultra-literal interpretation is OUT. You can bold letters all you want, but it won't change what was originally intended when written, and nowhere is the concept of time discussed as something created by God.

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

 

 I'm fully convinced that GOD created time, space and matter.

Nothing in the scriptures says God created time, space, and matter.  Time itself is a man made concept.  What is a second, minute, or an hour?  All units of time that man created.  We view a day based on the rotation of the planet we live on.  A day however is quite different on Mars or Venus than it is on Earth. 

[RevTestament]

On 7/7/2017 at 8:09 PM, Storm Rider said:

I think you are seeing only a glimmer of truth then jumping to a distortion.  Jesus was always the Son of God, a member of the Godhead, and chosen Savior of this world and all other worlds.  

I do not accept that. It is conceded and ridiculous to me. I realize you believe it, so I mean no offense, but to believe that all prior worlds had to wait for this ultra-wicked world to crucify Him is contrary to the gospel. He laid down His life. Anyone remember that? Per the King Follett discourse He was following His Father's example. This other doctrine is not compatible with what Joseph Smith taught. So no I don't accept it as doctrine.

Not to mention it is unscriptural in more ways than one:

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Edited July 9, 2017 by RevTestament