Are we enemies?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

I don't know, Wade. I think opposition to the church comes for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who are as you describe. Most exmormons I know have done a lot of soul-searching and introspection. And for me, one of the primary reasons I have left the church (insofar that I am out) is the realization of my own complicity and responsibility for the things I did and thought as a member.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Plutarch wrote:
harmony wrote:
The best course of conduct if you doubt is to adopt the Gamaliel solution.


For those who don't know, the Gamaliel Solution is "leave well alone and let God do the sorting out". All very well and good, except for another time-honored saying: "All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." I will not sit by and watch my church descend into mediocrity and lukewarmness. Call me a crusader, but I will continue to do as I do, and if that means suffering the slings and arrows of P and his friends, so be it.


Anonymity evokes the language of a coward. I, thus, cannot call you a crusader.

P


More slings and arrows. When you finally decide to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, I'm sure many here will notice. Until then, you fail at the most important part of life once again, P.

christopher
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:17 am

Post by christopher »

wenglund wrote:In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


What a load of condescending guilt inducing BS used to try and keep people in line. You sound like some correlation meeting "If there is a problem, it's certainly not the church, it must be you!"

I have yet to meet the offended person who resigned. A lot of inactives or less actives, but none who left.

Just maybe much of the opposition to the church is due to the evidences which show it not to be anything close to what it claims.


Chris <><

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

wenglund wrote:I think Plutarch is correct in suggesting that many here wish to evade personal responsibility and accountability--to the point of not even honestly acknowledging they are periodic adversaries, or opponents, or foes of the CoJCoLDS (connotations and synonyms for the word "enemy").

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Of course you agree with Plutarch, Wade. You and he are cut from the same cloth. Willful blindness isn't a virtue, but Plutarch and you have both tried to raise it to that level.

I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separate the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

harmony wrote:
More slings and arrows. When you finally decide to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, I'm sure many here will notice. Until then, you fail at the most important part of life once again, P.


You have a garbled view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You seem to think that, so long as you do not attack Jesus Christ per se, it is perfectly acceptable to vilify His Church, His servants, and his programs and procedures. I notice that you seem not to ever quote or rely upon the scriptures in your vilification. (Nor on much of anything else except personal anecdote.)

You also seem to think that posters who question your position are automatically unChristian. How ironic. Those who defend the Church are considered antiChristian. Those who attack it are the champions of free speech. [Sounds like the position of an evangelical anti-Mormon to me.]

But your anonymous posts are, indeed, an assault upon that which is good, right and uplifting. Perhaps I am wrong in pointing that out to you and the world. I don't think so. Perhaps I am wasting my time with you.

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

Runtu wrote:I don't know, Wade. I think opposition to the church comes for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who are as you describe. Most exmormons I know have done a lot of soul-searching and introspection. And for me, one of the primary reasons I have left the church (insofar that I am out) is the realization of my own complicity and responsibility for the things I did and thought as a member.


I will take you at your word. I am unfamiliar with you as "Runtu", and thus don't know who you are or much about what you have had to say about the Church. But, if you are correct, then I trust going forward that I will see what you say above predominating in your posts.

From my experience with critics of my faith, though, you would be the exception rather than the rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

christopher wrote:
wenglund wrote:In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


What a load of condescending guilt inducing BS used to try and keep people in line. You sound like some correlation meeting "If there is a problem, it's certainly not the church, it must be you!"

I have yet to meet the offended person who resigned. A lot of inactives or less actives, but none who left.

Just maybe much of the opposition to the church is due to the evidences which show it not to be anything close to what it claims. Chris <><


Whether intending to or not, you thoroughly illustrated my point. I do appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

christopher
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:17 am

Post by christopher »

wenglund wrote:Whether intending to or not, you thoroughly illustrated my point. I do appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-



Actually not, but if it makes you feel good, knock yourself out.


Chris <><

christopher
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:17 am

Post by christopher »

harmony wrote:I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separate the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.



This is interesting harmony, because I look at it the exact opposite way. I would gladly call myself an adversary, opposite or foe or enemy of the LDS church, yet I harbor no personal issues with the leadership or individual members. I have empathy for them, because just not too long ago, I thought and felt and acted as many of them do.


Most members, and that includes the leadership, are ignorant to the issues that caused most of us to leave the church. That is why I don't see them as liars or deceivers, etc. They just choose to believe and aren't interested. For those members who really look into things, and then not only stay, but actively promote the mind twists that it takes to keep believing it.....I have no idea how they are able to do that without the head exploding. The ones that I run across the internet, like the couple here are just silly when you step away and look at the defenses. I believe they are not looking for truth wherever it takes them, they just want to defend an institution at all costs.


Chris <><

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

harmony wrote:
wenglund wrote:I think Plutarch is correct in suggesting that many here wish to evade personal responsibility and accountability--to the point of not even honestly acknowledging they are periodic adversaries, or opponents, or foes of the CoJCoLDS (connotations and synonyms for the word "enemy").

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Of course you agree with Plutarch, Wade. You and he are cut from the same cloth. Willful blindness isn't a virtue, but Plutarch and you have both tried to raise it to that level.

I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separate the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.


I think I understand what you are saying. I am aware of women who incessantly berrate and nag their husbands, gossip and backbite, whine and complain about them, blame their husbands for their woes, rarely if ever have a kind, supportive, or encouraging word to say about them, and then when pressed, will say "sure I love my husband" and "I am not an enemy of my husband", and honestly mean it.

But, as mentioned previously, that is because these "wives" lack the capacity for honest introspection and have a near inpregnable aversion to accepting personal responsibility. Were they to have been subjected to the same kind of treatment by their husbands, they would be the first to cry "abuse" and to accuse their husbands of being an adversary, oppositon, foe, and an enemy. But, for the life of them, they cannot see it in themselves.

I see you, harmony/serenity/WAZing, as being that kind of "wife" to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

christopher wrote:
wenglund wrote:Whether intending to or not, you thoroughly illustrated my point. I do appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Actually not, but if it makes you feel good, knock yourself out. Chris <><


I am not going to continue the "yes you are...no I'm not...yes you are...no I'm not" exchang. You are free to go as deep into denial as you think you need, and utterly refuse to be personally accountable and responsible, but that won't change the reality of what I have said. In fact, it again unwittingly illustrates it.

If, on the other hand, you want to get into specifics of where you may have done exactly as I have said, and test whether I am right or wrong, then I am open to that. What about you? (Careful, the way you answer this question will unavoidably speak to whether you or I am right about what I have said.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

christopher
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:17 am

Post by christopher »

wenglund wrote:I am not going to continue the "yes you are...no I'm not...yes you are...no I'm not" exchang.


Then quit responding to the thread asshat, if that's all you can do.


wenglund wrote: You are free to go as deep into denial as you think you need, and utterly refuse to be personally accountable and responsible, but that won't change the reality of what I have said. In fact, it again unwittingly illustrates it.


It only displays your inability to understand that perhaps the church isn't what it says it is. Period. People can have problems, but maybe it's the teachings they aren't buying.


wenglund wrote:If, on the other hand, you want to get into specifics of where you may have done exactly as I have said, and test whether I am right or wrong, then I am open to that. What about you? (Careful, the way you answer this question will unavoidably speak to whether you or I am right about what I have said.)


Oh, damn, that's right.....it's always the person's problems not the church. Just make it a part of your testimony on Fast Sunday. I did quite a bit a self examination. I wanted the church to be true. I lived it, I loved it. Kept trying to believe as I studied and learned more. Sorry, it isn't even close to what it claims to be even though I wanted it to be.....and it wasn't my fault.


Chris <><


PS: Hey Scratch...if you do a little blurb on Brother Wade here, make sure you add his repetitious "It's obviously your fault not the church's problems mantra" in there somehow.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

wenglund wrote:
Runtu wrote:I don't know, Wade. I think opposition to the church comes for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who are as you describe. Most exmormons I know have done a lot of soul-searching and introspection. And for me, one of the primary reasons I have left the church (insofar that I am out) is the realization of my own complicity and responsibility for the things I did and thought as a member.


I will take you at your word. I am unfamiliar with you as "Runtu", and thus don't know who you are or much about what you have had to say about the Church. But, if you are correct, then I trust going forward that I will see what you say above predominating in your posts.

From my experience with critics of my faith, though, you would be the exception rather than the rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I've known you for quite a while, actually. I used to post as Johnny_cat when I was a believer on FAIR. Haven't been back there in about a year, I think. Sure, there are bad examples on both sides of the equation, but the people I've met who are currently in the church or have left have for the most part been thoughtful, intelligent people who probably would like each other if they weren't so opposed to each other's religious perspectives.

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

christopher wrote:
wenglund wrote:If, on the other hand, you want to get into specifics of where you may have done exactly as I have said, and test whether I am right or wrong, then I am open to that. What about you? (Careful, the way you answer this question will unavoidably speak to whether you or I am right about what I have said.)


Oh, damn, that's right.....it's always the person's problems not the church. Just make it a part of your testimony on Fast Sunday. I did quite a bit a self examination. I wanted the church to be true. I lived it, I loved it. Kept trying to believe as I studied and learned more. Sorry, it isn't even close to what it claims to be even though I wanted it to be.....and it wasn't my fault.

Chris <>.


I noticed that you carefully avoided directly answering my question. But, since I am feeling somewhat charitable, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't understand the gist of what I was asking.

So, let me put it another way. Please pick the single most eggregious thing you believe the Church has done to you personally, and let's look and see whether that perception may be a function of your own inability to accept personal responsibility. Feel free to open a separate thread in this forum for that purpose. Let's see just how convinced you are that you are right.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Runtu wrote:I don't know, Wade. I think opposition to the church comes for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who are as you describe. Most exmormons I know have done a lot of soul-searching and introspection. And for me, one of the primary reasons I have left the church (insofar that I am out) is the realization of my own complicity and responsibility for the things I did and thought as a member.


I will take you at your word. I am unfamiliar with you as "Runtu", and thus don't know who you are or much about what you have had to say about the Church. But, if you are correct, then I trust going forward that I will see what you say above predominating in your posts.

From my experience with critics of my faith, though, you would be the exception rather than the rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I've known you for quite a while, actually. I used to post as Johnny_cat when I was a believer on FAIR. Haven't been back there in about a year, I think. Sure, there are bad examples on both sides of the equation, but the people I've met who are currently in the church or have left have for the most part been thoughtful, intelligent people who probably would like each other if they weren't so opposed to each other's religious perspectives.


I agree. My comments were not in general for those who have left the Church, or whose testimonies were wavering. Rather, they were specific to CRITICS of the Church--in other words, those who publically criticize the Church, particularly those who predominate in their criticisms and have little or nothing positive to say about the Church.

And, I wasn't suggesting that critics can't be nice and likeable people, but that they tend to lack the capacity to accept personal responsibility, which is a function of a lack of open and honest introspection. In other words, they tend to be blame finders who ardently resist seeing themselves as a possible suspect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22509
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Post by moksha »

Plutarch wrote:
moksha wrote:
Plutarch wrote: But, it is a fundamental belief of the Church that Gordon B. Hinckley is the only man on earth who holds all of the keys of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Can he perform a resurrection? Can he grant salvation?


Could St. Peter?


I don't think so. I have always thought he was more like a desk clerk as oppose to hotel management, but I could be wrong.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
asbestosman
God
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm

Post by asbestosman »

moksha wrote:
Plutarch wrote:
moksha wrote:
Plutarch wrote: But, it is a fundamental belief of the Church that Gordon B. Hinckley is the only man on earth who holds all of the keys of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Can he perform a resurrection? Can he grant salvation?


Could St. Peter?


I don't think so. I have always thought he was more like a desk clerk as oppose to hotel management, but I could be wrong.

I thought he was more like a janitor. He has all the keys so he can clean up everyone's messes.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

christopher wrote:
wenglund wrote:I am not going to continue the "yes you are...no I'm not...yes you are...no I'm not" exchang.


Then quit responding to the thread asshat, if that's all you can do.


wenglund wrote: You are free to go as deep into denial as you think you need, and utterly refuse to be personally accountable and responsible, but that won't change the reality of what I have said. In fact, it again unwittingly illustrates it.


It only displays your inability to understand that perhaps the church isn't what it says it is. Period. People can have problems, but maybe it's the teachings they aren't buying.


wenglund wrote:If, on the other hand, you want to get into specifics of where you may have done exactly as I have said, and test whether I am right or wrong, then I am open to that. What about you? (Careful, the way you answer this question will unavoidably speak to whether you or I am right about what I have said.)


Oh, damn, that's right.....it's always the person's problems not the church. Just make it a part of your testimony on Fast Sunday. I did quite a bit a self examination. I wanted the church to be true. I lived it, I loved it. Kept trying to believe as I studied and learned more. Sorry, it isn't even close to what it claims to be even though I wanted it to be.....and it wasn't my fault.


Chris <><


PS: Hey Scratch...if you do a little blurb on Brother Wade here, make sure you add his repetitious "It's obviously your fault not the church's problems mantra" in there somehow.


Unfortunately for me and my over-heated keyboard, Dr. Shades has taken over the "Banned from FAIR" blog, and thus Wade Englund resides squarely in Shades' jurisdiction. In fact, Wade was the second entry (if I'm not mistaken) into Shades' blog.

Edited to add: Hey, Wade---would it be fair to say that you've been caught with "eggregious" on your face?

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

wenglund wrote:
harmony wrote:
wenglund wrote:I think Plutarch is correct in suggesting that many here wish to evade personal responsibility and accountability--to the point of not even honestly acknowledging they are periodic adversaries, or opponents, or foes of the CoJCoLDS (connotations and synonyms for the word "enemy").

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Of course you agree with Plutarch, Wade. You and he are cut from the same cloth. Willful blindness isn't a virtue, but Plutarch and you have both tried to raise it to that level.

I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separate the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.


I think I understand what you are saying. I am aware of women who incessantly berrate and nag their husbands, gossip and backbite, whine and complain about them, blame their husbands for their woes, rarely if ever have a kind, supportive, or encouraging word to say about them, and then when pressed, will say "sure I love my husband" and "I am not an enemy of my husband", and honestly mean it.

But, as mentioned previously, that is because these "wives" lack the capacity for honest introspection and have a near inpregnable aversion to accepting personal responsibility. Were they to have been subjected to the same kind of treatment by their husbands, they would be the first to cry "abuse" and to accuse their husbands of being an adversary, oppositon, foe, and an enemy. But, for the life of them, they cannot see it in themselves.

I see you, harmony/serenity/WAZing, as being that kind of "wife" to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


With your experience as a husband (zero, from what I can ascertain), I can quite honestly say you don't know anything about marriage, Wade. Come back when you've managed to spend 35 years with the same person. Then and only then will you be able to give me advice about marriage. I've accomplished something you can only dream about. Your credibility when speaking about marriage, or any relationship requiring years of work to maintain, is clearly zero.

Find another analogy. That one doesn't work.

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

harmony wrote:
wenglund wrote:I think Plutarch is correct in suggesting that many here wish to evade personal responsibility and accountability--to the point of not even honestly acknowledging they are periodic adversaries, or opponents, or foes of the CoJCoLDS (connotations and synonyms for the word "enemy").

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Of course you agree with Plutarch, Wade. You and he are cut from the same cloth. Willful blindness isn't a virtue, but Plutarch and you have both tried to raise it to that level.

I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separaute the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.


Wow. You love the Church? I find love for the LDS Church hard to find in most your posts. You frankly despise almost everything about its founding prophet, seem to despise almost everything about its leaders, and yes the LDS Church does teach that its leaders are apostles and prophets, God's spokesmen on earth. I see very little in your posting to indicate you love the Church.

So what in or about the LDS Church do you love?

Jason

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Wow. You love the Church? I find love for the LDS Church hard to find in most your posts. You frankly despise almost everything about its founding prophet, seem to despise almost everything about its leaders, and yes the LDS Church does teach that its leaders are apostles and prophets, God's spokesmen on earth. I see very little in your posting to indicate you love the Church.


And you feel you know me well enough to make this judgment, based on ... what? Two weeks of reading my words? Perhaps you need to ask a few more questions before you make a leap that will likely prove to be in error.

So what in or about the LDS Church do you love?

Jason


The list is endless. The other list, the one of what is it about the church that really pisses me off, is much shorter.

Post Reply