Diversity of this forum

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Aggressive anti Mormon folks are pretty hard to be around when there’s an agenda to enlighten.  Same with aggressive zealots who have an agenda to convert. I’m sure we have some of each here. For the most part I think participants on this board are pretty fair and balanced. 

I believe that this scripture may be fitting for your breakdown of the members of this board:

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3)

Which group is hot, which group is cold, and which group is lukewarm?

[InCognitus]

39 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I believe that this scripture may be fitting for your breakdown of the members of this board:

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3)

Which group is hot, which group is cold, and which group is lukewarm?

But that verse says they're neither (they are unremarkable, they are only lukewarm and thus spew worthy).  What is your point exactly?

MustardSeed was saying we have all kinds on this board and are fairly balanced.

Edited March 24, 2023 by InCognitus

[Grug the Neanderthal]

10 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

What is your point exactly?

Which group out of the three best fits this description of being neither hot, nor cold, but rather lukewarm? Is it the "aggressive anti-Mormons" who are actively trying to get people to doubt the restored gospel, is it the "aggressive zealots" trying to "convert" people to their traditional viewpoints on the restored gospel, or is it the "pretty fair and balanced" people, who aren't trying to lead anyone away or convince anyone of the truth of anything? 

[MustardSeed]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But that verse says they're neither (they are unremarkable, they are only lukewarm and thus spew worthy).  What is your point exactly?

MustardSeed was saying we have all kinds on this board and are fairly balanced.

If he’s speaking to me I have him on ignore.  
 

Yes, we have all kinds here.  Most are fairly balanced.  Balanced and fair might look boring to some who like a fight. 

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Which group out of the three best fits this description of being neither hot, nor cold, but rather lukewarm? Is it the "aggressive anti-Mormons" who are actively trying to get people to doubt the restored gospel, is it the "aggressive zealots" trying to "convert" people to their traditional viewpoints on the restored gospel, or is it the "pretty fair and balanced" people, who aren't trying to lead anyone away or convince anyone of the truth of anything? 

I guess my only question is, where would Jesus fit in that scale of individuals?   He's not "anti", and he's not an aggressive zealot.  So where does he fit?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

15 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

he's not an aggressive zealot

No? He wasn’t out trying to convert people? He didn’t boldly teach the truth? 

He was just some fair and opened minded individual open to all kinds of viewpoints and teachings?

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No? He wasn’t out trying to convert people? He didn’t boldly teach the truth? 

He was just some fair and opened minded individual open to all kinds of viewpoints and teachings?

zeal·ot  noun   1.  a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

ag·gres·sive  adjective 

•  ready or likely to attack or confront; characterized by or resulting from aggression. "he's very uncooperative and aggressive"
• pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so.  "we needed more growth to pursue our aggressive acquisition strategy"

I think you're confusing standing for true principles and boldly teaching the truth with fanaticism and aggression.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

I think you're confusing standing for true principles and boldly teaching the truth with fanaticism and aggression

No, I think the person who first applied this label to a certain subset of individuals on this board is. 

There’s a reason why most people were offended by Jesus and his teachings and why he was despised and rejected. 

[InCognitus]

19 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, I think the person who first applied this label to a certain subset of individuals on this board is. 

There’s a reason why most people were offended by Jesus and his teachings and why he was despised and rejected. 

But Jesus was neither a Zealot (by that definition) nor aggressive. 

People were offended by Jesus and his teachings because some of what he taught went against their traditions and their pride.  But Jesus taught with kindness and love, not with fanaticism and aggression.  

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

But Jesus was neither a Zealot (by that definition) nor aggressive. 

People were offended by Jesus and his teachings because some of what he taught went against their traditions and their pride.  But Jesus taught with kindness and love, not with fanaticism and aggression.  

Jesus was definitely considered a fanatic and a troublemaker by those who found his bold teachings to be offensive or threatening. And he was definitely trying to convert people. He wasn’t some "fair open minded" individual open to all kinds of teachings and philosophies.

And I take issue with a certain poster derogatorily labeling people whose views she finds offensive or threatening as “aggressive zealots trying to convert people.”

But unless you are trying to suggest that Jesus was lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, this is beside the point. 

[InCognitus]

3 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

He wasn’t some "fair open minded" individual open to all kinds of teachings and philosophies.

The person said,  "participants on this board are pretty fair and balanced".  You are misconstruing that to mean "open minded" and "open to all kinds of teachings and philosophies".  NOT the same thing.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

16 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The person said,  "participants on this board are pretty fair and balanced".  You are misconstruing that to mean "open minded" and "open to all kinds of teachings and philosophies".  NOT the same thing.

She had made other comments were she refers to these same “fair and balanced” individuals as being open minded and here to learn new ideas compared to those who are not open minded and instead trying to convert people or assert traditional views. 

In any event, I take issue with her derogatory mischaracterization of those whose views she finds offensive or threatening as “aggressive religious zealots trying to convert people.” 

And my question remains. Which of the three groups of people she mentioned would be considered lukewarm, rather than hot or cold?

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I believe that this scripture may be fitting for your breakdown of the members of this board:

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3)

Which group is hot, which group is cold, and which group is lukewarm?

“Thy works” and not thy words. Being passionate or heated on a message board is not a solid indicator of being dedicated to something in meatspace.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Thy works” and not thy words. Being passionate or heated on a message board is not a solid indicator of being dedicated to something in meatspace.

Our words, including those on a message board, are part of our works. 

[InCognitus]

31 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

individuals as being open minded

I have a question for you based on these teachings from the Prophet Joseph Smith (and I'm sure you've seen these before, so this should be familiar to you):

Quote

In the first place, I have stated above  that Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, is truth; for the name of Mormon, and Mormonism, was given to us by our enemies, but Latter Day Saints was the real name by which the church was organized.  Now sir, you may think that it is a broad assertion that it is truth; but sir, the first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same; we feel ourselves bound by the laws of God, to observe and do strictly, with all our hearts, all things whatsoever is manifest unto us by the highest degree of testimony that God has committed us, as written in the old and new Testament, or any where else, by any manifestation, whereof we know that it has come from God:  and has application to us, being adapted to our situation and circumstances; age, and generation of life; and that we have a perfect, and indefeasible right, to embrace all such commandments, and do them; knowing, that God will not command any thing, but what is peculiarly adapted in itself, to ameliorate the condition of every man under whatever circumstances it may find him, it matters not what kingdom or country he may be in.  (Times and Seasons, Vol.1, p.53 - p.54, Letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, Mar. 22, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri, published in Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 53–54)

And:

Quote

Sunday morning, January 1, 1843.--The speaker of the House of Representatives called on me to say we might have the hall for preaching this day. Had a pleasant interview with Mr. Butterfield, Judge Douglas, Senator Gillespie, and others. In reply to Mr. Butterfield, I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.12, p.215, 1 January 1843, Sunday, History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843]

And finally:

Quote

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."   (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

Now for my question:  Given the teachings of the Prophet quoted above, what do you see to be the difference between what Joseph Smith says about being open to truth wherever it may be found, compared to "individuals being open minded", or as you said, an "individual open to all kinds of teachings and philosophies"?

56 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And my question remains. Which of the three groups of people she mentioned would be considered lukewarm, rather than hot or cold?

None of the above. Look at the context of the verse that you quoted (to the Laodiceans):

Quote

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
(Revelation 3:15–19)

The verse is talking about works (in this case it's about being prideful and covetousness) and being "zealous" in doing good works.  How do you think this applies to people on this forum?

Can a person be "zealous" in living the principles of the gospel and in demonstration of the love and kindness demonstrated by the Savior and not be an aggressive fanatic in going about it?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

32 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Now for my question:  Given the teachings of the Prophet quoted above, what do you see to be the difference between what Joseph Smith says about being open to truth wherever it may be found, compared to "individuals being open minded", or as you said, an "individual open to all kinds of teachings and philosophies"?

The difference I see is what one does with the truth that has already been revealed and also what sources one utilizes to try and find new truth.

What do we learn in the temple and in the scriptures about how Satan operates to deceive and ensnare people? He uses false and corrupt religions and their teachers as well as mixing the philosophies of men with scripture. If we are open to teachings and philosophies that contradict God’s word as revealed by the scriptures/prophets then we are not holding fast to the iron rod and instead exploring forbidden paths. 

37 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Quote

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
(Revelation 3:15–19)

The verse is talking about works (in this case it's about being prideful and covetousness) and being "zealous" in doing good works.  How do you think this applies to people on this forum?

I think if a person doesn’t take a stand for the doctrines and teachings of the restored gospel and as contained in the scriptures and is instead open to exploring or even advocating teachings that are not in harmony with the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel and as contained in the scriptures, then this person is lukewarm and neither hot nor cold.

This need not be a permanent condition, though. 

42 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Can a person be "zealous" in living the principles of the gospel and in demonstration of the love and kindness demonstrated by the Savior and not be an aggressive fanatic in going about it?

I think if a person is firm and unwavering in their defense of the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel and as contained in the scriptures in a similar manner that Jesus was, those who find such teachings offensive or threatening will label such and individual as an aggressive religious zealot or some other kind of derogatory term as a defense mechanism. 

Like I said before, there’s a reason why most people were offended at the teachings of the Savior and despised and rejected him. And it wasn’t because he was overly aggressive. 

[Navidad]

I'd like to take this opportunity to share something this forum and my role in senior leadership in large, especially urban public school districts has taught me. I am grateful for the lessons that have, at times, been hard for me to implement. Slowly and with great reluctance, I am getting bit by bit better at it. What is the lesson? . . . . . . . . . . To walk away, turn off the mike, take my fingers off of the keyboard, say more with less words (I see that . . . now you are all laughing and rolling your eyes! 🙄). I am learning that I don't always have to respond. I am learning that not responding, in the short run makes me feel worse, and in the long run much better. I am learning that life and this forum is a lot like ping pong. No matter how good or bad you are, there is always someone better or worse. No matter how sure you are, there is always someone surer (is that a word)! I am learning that wisdom is much more valuable than knowledge and that knowledge is much more important than information.

I am learning to let go of what I don't understand (OK . . . pick yourselves up off the floor!). I am learning that much of what I am not for is much of what I don't understand. I am learning the truth of the old hymn I used to sing - "Trust and Obey, for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey." I am learning to evaluate my own certainty when I wonder how someone else can be so very certain. I am learning not to scold someone when they take scripture out of context . . . one of my pet peeves. I am learning that my pet peeves often turn around and bite me. I am learning that much of life is neither bitter nor sweet, but bittersweet. I must accept both. I am very impatient with learning patience. I was born prematurely in March 1949 because I was impatient and wanted to get on with life. . . and so it has gone my entire life!

Remember the part about "less words." Ok, I will now do what a good Baptist/Mennonite preacher does when they are half-way done their sermon. . . . "In conclusion" . . . . I appreciate all, well maybe most of what each of you . . . well maybe most of you have taught me. Every day . . . well maybe most days, I am more open to learning new things. . . to receiving new things. Learning and receiving new things makes me neither wishy-washy, post-modernist, nor lukewarm. I don't have all the answers, but I still have many questions. Just think . . . . Navidad in eternity . . . eternally asking questions! Oh my! OK . . . I will now take my fingers off the keyboard and hit "Submit Reply. Aren't you all glad I am learning to do that?

Edited March 24, 2023 by Navidad

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I'd like to take this opportunity to share something this forum and my role in senior leadership in large, especially urban public school districts has taught me. I am grateful for the lessons that have, at times, been hard for me to implement. Slowly and with great reluctance, I am getting bit by bit better at it. What is the lesson? . . . . . . . . . . To walk away, turn off the mike, take my fingers off of the keyboard, say more with less words (I see that . . . now you are all laughing and rolling your eyes! 🙄). I am learning that I don't always have to respond. I am learning that not responding, in the short run makes me feel worse, and in the long run much better. I am learning that life and this forum is a lot like ping pong. No matter how good or bad you are, there is always someone better or worse. No matter how sure you are, there is always someone surer (is that a word)! I am learning that wisdom is much more valuable than knowledge and that knowledge is much more important than information.

I am learning to let go of what I don't understand (OK . . . pick yourselves up off the floor!). I am learning that much of what I am not for is much of what I don't understand. I am learning the truth of the old hymn I used to sing - "Trust and Obey, for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey." I am learning to evaluate my own certainty when I wonder how someone else can be so very certain. I am learning not to scold someone when they take scripture out of context . . . one of my pet peeves. I am learning that my pet peeves often turn around and bite me. I am learning that much of life is neither bitter nor sweet, but bittersweet. I must accept both. I am very impatient with learning patience. I was born prematurely in March 1949 because I was impatient and wanted to get on with life. . . and so it has gone my entire life!

Remember the part about "less words." Ok, I will now do what a good Baptist/Mennonite preacher does when they are half-way done their sermon. . . . "In conclusion" . . . . I appreciate all, well maybe most of what each of you . . . well maybe most of you have taught me. Every day . . . well maybe most days, I am more open to learning new things. . . to receiving new things. Learning and receiving new things makes me neither wishy-washy, post-modernist, nor lukewarm. I don't have all the answers, but I still have many questions. Just think . . . . Navidad in eternity . . . eternally asking questions! Oh my! OK . . . I will now take my fingers off the keyboard and hit "Submit Reply. Aren't you all glad I am learning to do that?

We are all blessed to have you here.  Seriously!

Your T.S. Eliot reference didn’t go unnoticed:

“Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Our words, including those on a message board, are part of our works. 

I wouldn’t take someone’s words on a message board as an indicator of passion. If being fiery on the internet is an indicator of dedicated passion then YouTube commenters are all out there changing the world.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There’s a reason why most people were offended by Jesus and his teachings and why he was despised and rejected. 

Yes, but equating being offensive, despised, and rejected with speaking truth is a dangerous equation.  David Koresh and Warren Jeffs also offended people by their teachings and have been/were despised and rejected by the masses.  They, like many who don't like it when they get pushback for their behavior or beliefs, have also claimed that opposition to their teachings was a sign of their truth.

Being offensive, despised, and rejected does not, in and of itself, mean what you are teaching or doing is truth and God's will.  

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The difference I see is what one does with the truth that has already been revealed

I agree with this.  We need to build upon the true principles that we already hold.

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

and also what sources one utilizes to try and find new truth.

What sources would be good or bad here?

• Science?
• The "best books"?
• The Presbyterians, Baptists, or Methodists?  (I'll add Mennonites and Catholics too just because )

What about having different opinions on how to interpret scripture and doctrine?  Where does that fit in your view?  Do you think different opinions on scripture and doctrine fit within the church?

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What do we learn in the temple and in the scriptures about how Satan operates to deceive and ensnare people? He uses false and corrupt religions and their teachers as well as mixing the philosophies of men with scripture. If we are open to teachings and philosophies that contradict God’s word as revealed by the scriptures/prophets then we are not holding fast to the iron rod and instead exploring forbidden paths.

This is true. 

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think if a person doesn’t take a stand for the doctrines and teachings of the restored gospel and as contained in the scriptures and is instead open to exploring or even advocating teachings that are not in harmony with the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel and as contained in the scriptures, then this person is lukewarm and neither hot nor cold.

This need not be a permanent condition, though. 

Ok, so do you really think that a person has to be either an anti-Mormon or an aggressive zealot to not be lukewarm on this board?  Wouldn't the Savior's way, of showing love and kindness for others and being zealous for teaching the gospel be the best approach?  You know I'm saying there is a difference between being zealous and a zealot, right?

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think if a person is firm and unwavering in their defense of the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel and as contained in the scriptures in a similar manner that Jesus was, those who find such teachings offensive or threatening will label such and individual as an aggressive religious zealot or some other kind of derogatory term as a defense mechanism. 

But being firm and unwavering in their defense of the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel is not the same as being an aggressive zealots.  

[Grug the Neanderthal]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Being offensive, despised, and rejected does not, in and of itself, mean what you are teaching or doing is truth and God's will.  

Of course. But neither does being despised and maligned for holding views that people find offensive or threatening mean that one is doing anything wrong.

Those who boldly taught the truth, were always despised and rejected by the majority, while those who taught falsehoods and soothing flattering doctrines were upheld and praised by the majority. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Of course. But neither does being despised and maligned for holding views that people find offensive or threatening mean that one is doing anything wrong.

Those who boldly taught the truth, were always despised and rejected by the majority, while those who taught falsehoods and soothing flattering doctrines were upheld and praised by the majority. 

Well said, and may I add that the majority of the world agrees with you on this point.

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

I'd like to take this opportunity to share something this forum and my role in senior leadership in large, especially urban public school districts has taught me. I am grateful for the lessons that have, at times, been hard for me to implement. Slowly and with great reluctance, I am getting bit by bit better at it. What is the lesson? . . . . . . . . . . To walk away, turn off the mike, take my fingers off of the keyboard, say more with less words (I see that . . . now you are all laughing and rolling your eyes! 🙄). I am learning that I don't always have to respond. I am learning that not responding, in the short run makes me feel worse, and in the long run much better. I am learning that life and this forum is a lot like ping pong. No matter how good or bad you are, there is always someone better or worse. No matter how sure you are, there is always someone surer (is that a word)! I am learning that wisdom is much more valuable than knowledge and that knowledge is much more important than information.

I am learning to let go of what I don't understand (OK . . . pick yourselves up off the floor!). I am learning that much of what I am not for is much of what I don't understand. I am learning the truth of the old hymn I used to sing - "Trust and Obey, for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey." I am learning to evaluate my own certainty when I wonder how someone else can be so very certain. I am learning not to scold someone when they take scripture out of context . . . one of my pet peeves. I am learning that my pet peeves often turn around and bite me. I am learning that much of life is neither bitter nor sweet, but bittersweet. I must accept both. I am very impatient with learning patience. I was born prematurely in March 1949 because I was impatient and wanted to get on with life. . . and so it has gone my entire life!

Remember the part about "less words." Ok, I will now do what a good Baptist/Mennonite preacher does when they are half-way done their sermon. . . . "In conclusion" . . . . I appreciate all, well maybe most of what each of you . . . well maybe most of you have taught me. Every day . . . well maybe most days, I am more open to learning new things. . . to receiving new things. Learning and receiving new things makes me neither wishy-washy, post-modernist, nor lukewarm. I don't have all the answers, but I still have many questions. Just think . . . . Navidad in eternity . . . eternally asking questions! Oh my! OK . . . I will now take my fingers off the keyboard and hit "Submit Reply. Aren't you all glad I am learning to do that?

Nah, I will stick with this philosophy:

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

What sources would be good or bad here?

• Science?
• The "best books"?
• The Presbyterians, Baptists, or Methodists?  (I'll add Mennonites and Catholics too

There’s a lot to be learned from science books and other educational books about all kinds of topics. However, if a book causes you to set aside what the scriptures teach in favor of the philosophies of men, than that’s a huge problem. 

As for sectarian Christianity, what truths do you expect to find from then that you can’t find in the standard works or the restored gospel from the true and living church?

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Wouldn't the Savior's way, of showing love and kindness for others and being zealous for teaching the gospel be the best approach?

Yes, this is definitely the best approach. 

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But being firm and unwavering in their defense of the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel is not the same as being an aggressive zealots.  

True, however those who are firm and unwavering in their defense of the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel have always been despised, rejected, maligned, and derogatorily mischaracterized as aggressive zealots or what have you.