Are we enemies?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Guest
Nursery
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:06 pm

On Knowing...

Post by Guest »

harmony wrote:
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.


I feel like I know you, at least some of your online personas. I wouldn't have had the same reaction as Jersey Boy above. But now I'm clear. You love the Church but hate the prophets that lead it. I feel the same way - it's such a consistent position to hold, don't you think?

Best,
Mark

Edit: Changed the word "wouldn't" to what I meant, which is "would've. Makes a difference in what I'm saying.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: On Knowing...

Post by harmony »

Guest wrote:
harmony wrote:
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.


I feel like I know you, at least some of your online personas. I wouldn't have had the same reaction as Jersey Boy above. But now I'm clear. You love the Church but hate the prophets that lead it. I feel the same way - it's such a consistent position to hold, don't you think?

Best,
Mark


Well, I wouldn't say hate. Hate is much too strong a word. I don't care for many of the leaders' public personas, and I really don't like many of their policies, and that goes all the way back to Joseph.

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

Post by wenglund »

harmony wrote:
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.


Using that same banal reasoning, I can say that you have no experience as a man, and I can honestly say you know nothing about men. Come back when you have spent 50+ years as a man. Then and only then will you be able to give me advise as a man. Blah blah blah.

Were you to have considered my analogy rationally, instead of emotionally, you may have correctly noted that, contrary to what you suggest, I was in no way giving advise on marriage, but simply making an observation about what I have personally witnessed in several marriages, and accurately related that to what I have personally witness with you in relation to the Church. I do have plenty of experince as a personal witness, and thus, contrary to what you insipidly suggest, I am in an authoritative position to posit the analogy.

Now, I know you are terribly resistent to personal accountability, and thus cannot allow yourself to consider yourself in that unflattering way--even though it is the truth, but would prefer to see yourself in a more favorable light. The good news is, you can eventually become what you now only imagine yourself to be. You can stop being the kind of woman you feel ashamed enough of to deny exists, and become the very best that is you.

However, it will take undergoing the unpleasant task of accepting personal responsibility for what you have been, and what you currently are towards the Church (or also in you marriage if that applies), and then charting a proper course to your intended destination. As Dr. Phil says, you cannot fix what you do not acknowledge.

Please take that first step. We all will benefit from it--but you most of all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

Wade---

Don't you think that you ought to attend to your issues of accountability and responsibility first? That is, don't you think you should:

---Answer the question I posed to you as to whether or not you use a sockpuppet?
---Agree to be interviewed by Tal Bachman?
---Start using a spellchecker?

Honestly, Wade, I really don't understand how/why you think you can go around making accusations vis-à-vis "personal accountability" when you don't live up to those standards yourself.

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

Post by wenglund »

Mister Scratch wrote:Wade---

Don't you think that you ought to attend to your issues of accountability and responsibility first? That is, don't you think you should:

---Answer the question I posed to you as to whether or not you use a sockpuppet?
---Agree to be interviewed by Tal Bachman?
---Start using a spellchecker?

Honestly, Wade, I really don't understand how/why you think you can go around making accusations vis-à-vis "personal accountability" when you don't live up to those standards yourself.


You raise an interesting point in spite of your examples being way off the mark. I shouldn't ask others to do that which I am not willing to do myself. In fact, if I really take my own advise, I would, unlike Scratch, focus first on my own accountability issues before advising others to do likewise.

Now, I happen to believe that I have done so, and do so, but I am certainly open to valid suggestions where I have not.

Anyway, there may be some confusion about what I have in mind in terms of accountability and personal responsibility. And, since this is a bit off topic here, I will start my own thread thereon.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

This is an impossibly subjective question. I do not consider myself an "enemy" to the church, but I have no doubt that traditional believers would view me as an enemy to the church, because I am vocal in my criticisms of certain basic LDS truth claims.

If I were truly an enemy to the church, I would constantly try to get my family members "out", regardless of whether or not they find church activity fulfilling in their own lives. If I were truly an enemy to the church, I would actively seek to communicate information that can lead members to doubt to any and all members of the church, regardless of whether or not they have sought that information on their own.

So, in my mind, I am not an enemy of the church, because I do not do those things. I am, however, a former member who retains an active interest in LDS topics, and who is very willing to discuss those issues with members who seek out those same sort of conversations. If that makes me an enemy of the church in the minds of those people, it simply demonstrates their own prejudices, and perhaps odd need to feel persecuted, even if one has to actively seek persecution.

This is why I quit FAIR. Critics are allowed, and even wanted, in order to present opportuntities for apologists to help believers find a way to reconcile troubling issues. And yet those same critics, who are wanted and needed on the board, are automatically viewed as "enemies" by core FAIRites, (not all posters at FAIR), who do their best to propagate and popularize viewing these same critics as disgruntled, angry, not-to-be-trusted "enemies" of the church. Talk about poisoning the well. It's like posting on a board dedicated to demonstrating that democrats are immoral liars by inviting democrats to discuss "issues" with republicans, while the core republicans on the board propagate and popularize their view that these same democrats are immoral liars. (or vice versa) I guess those sort of conversations fill people's needs in some way, but it doesn't appeal to me. Perhaps both groups are finding their own way of affirming their own prejudices. (republicans: see, all democrats are immoral liars, ignore them and don't vote for them! democrats: see, all republicans think we are nothing more than immoral liars, ignore them and don't vote for them!)*

* I should add that it is not impossible to have some genuine conversations, based on a real desire to talk about the actual issue rather than the flaws of the critic/believer, on boards such as FAIR or my imaginary political board, but it requires immense patience and persistence, as well as the willingness to ignore a significant number of posts and posters. Perhaps if I were retired I would have that kind of patience and persistence, but I ran out a while ago.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

harmony wrote:Mormons view the world as Us against Them. And, as our leaders regularly remind us, if you aren't with Us, you're with Them. Mormons are especially hard on those who have rejected church membership. In the old days, we had Blood Atonement, actual killing of apostates.

Really? Who, for instance?

That falsehood is frequently propagated by enemies of the Church (and hence of the truth) but it is without foundation.

Indeed, I have yet to even see any serious attempt to substantiate it.

harmony wrote:Then we just did it symbolically in the temple.

No. We did not.

That falsehood is frequently propagated by enemies of the Church (and hence of the truth) but it is without foundation.

harmony wrote:Now we just shun and ridicule them.

"Shun" how? Mura hachibu style perhaps?

And do you deny that "ridicule" is at least as prevalent coming in the other direction?

Hey pot, meet Ms. Harmony kettle.

And just who is this "we" anyway?

Regards,
Pahoran

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

Post by Jason Bourne »

harmony wrote:
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.



Sorry. I have seen you post elsewhere for quite some time now. Much longer then a few weeks. I see little you love for the Church in your posting. So If I am in error here is your chance to correct me.

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.


Then you should have little trouble answering my question. 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 »

What in or about the LDS Church do you love?

Jason


Several things:

1. the original concept of Relief Society although I would certainly have called it something else. Certainly a women's organization that had as much clout and power as the men's organizations was very progressive and ahead of its time.

2. the idea that any member is welcome in any ward in the system, that there are no strangers among the Saints.

3. the idea that God, our Heavenly Father, and God, Jesus Christ, are two separate beings, with bodies, capable of strong emotions.

4. the idea that we can progress past the imperfections of our earthly lives.

5. the idea of preparedness, personal, family, emergency, etc.

6. the ideas behind the church welfare system.

7. the idea of personal revelation and with it, personal accountability

8. the idea that God answers prayers

9. the idea that family is the most important relationship we can have, although we don't emphasize it enough and certainly don't live it enough.

10. the idea that faith and works are two parts of the same coin

11. the idea that children are innocent

12. the idea that God is no respector of persons (we don't live this one very well, but it's basic)


Those will do for starters.

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

Post by Jason Bourne »

harmony wrote:
What in or about the LDS Church do you love?

Jason


Several things:

1. the original concept of Relief Society although I would certainly have called it something else. Certainly a women's organization that had as much clout and power as the men's organizations was very progressive and ahead of its time.

2. the idea that any member is welcome in any ward in the system, that there are no strangers among the Saints.

3. the idea that God, our Heavenly Father, and God, Jesus Christ, are two separate beings, with bodies, capable of strong emotions.

4. the idea that we can progress past the imperfections of our earthly lives.

5. the idea of preparedness, personal, family, emergency, etc.

6. the ideas behind the church welfare system.

7. the idea of personal revelation and with it, personal accountability

8. the idea that God answers prayers

9. the idea that family is the most important relationship we can have, although we don't emphasize it enough and certainly don't live it enough.

10. the idea that faith and works are two parts of the same coin

11. the idea that children are innocent

12. the idea that God is no respector of persons (we don't live this one very well, but it's basic)


Those will do for starters.


Ok. That is a good start. Now, can I ask you this. You seem very hostile towards Joseph Smith. I understand this some. There are concerns I have about his career. Can you tell me if you think he was a prophet at all? Do you think God at least got him started? If yes, where do you think Joseph took it farther the God wanted him to?

Jason

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

Post by harmony »

Ok. That is a good start. Now, can I ask you this. You seem very hostile towards Joseph Smith. I understand this some. There are concerns I have about his career. Can you tell me if you think he was a prophet at all? Do you think God at least got him started? If yes, where do you think Joseph took it farther the God wanted him to?

Jason


Hostile? Betrayed is a more apt word. Dismayed, disheartened, ashamed are all applicable too.

I think he was a prophet right up until he took Fanny to bed and then used God's name to cover his adultery. And lied about it. Again and again. Shameful behavior. Just as adultery has felled many a preacher and president, so it felled Joseph Smith also.

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

Post by Runtu »

I guess I don't have the same problem, as I do not love the church or its prophets. And yes, "betrayed" is a good word.

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

Post by Jason Bourne »

harmony wrote:
Ok. That is a good start. Now, can I ask you this. You seem very hostile towards Joseph Smith. I understand this some. There are concerns I have about his career. Can you tell me if you think he was a prophet at all? Do you think God at least got him started? If yes, where do you think Joseph took it farther the God wanted him to?

Jason


Hostile? Betrayed is a more apt word. Dismayed, disheartened, ashamed are all applicable too.

I think he was a prophet right up until he took Fanny to bed and then used God's name to cover his adultery. And lied about it. Again and again. Shameful behavior. Just as adultery has felled many a preacher and president, so it felled Joseph Smith also.


So, do you believe that that Book of Mormon is God's word and the revelations in the D&C are God's words up to the Fanny affair? Do you believe that God may have given Joseph Smith revelations after the Fanny affiar? Do you believe Joseph Smith's account of how he got the Book of Mormon and about the First Vision?

Jason

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

harmony wrote:
I think he was a prophet right up until he took Fanny to bed and then used God's name to cover his adultery. And lied about it. Again and again. Shameful behavior. Just as adultery has felled many a preacher and president, so it felled Joseph Smith also.


You know so little of this matter, yet you are willing to give Joseph Smith's attackers the benefit of every doubt.

"Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned . . . ." D&C 121:16.

I know this scripture, as all the rest, will have little meaning to you. I know your response to me will be something along the lines of, well, if I am cursed I am cursed. How can God expect me to have faith under these circumstances, etc. etc.?

But you, in particularly, are in error for posting anonymous attacks against the church and pretending, in real life (or so you say) to be a believing member.

May I suggest some changes:

1. Become more learned.

2. Be less hypocritical.

P

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

Post by Runtu »

Plutarch wrote:
harmony wrote:
I think he was a prophet right up until he took Fanny to bed and then used God's name to cover his adultery. And lied about it. Again and again. Shameful behavior. Just as adultery has felled many a preacher and president, so it felled Joseph Smith also.


You know so little of this matter, yet you are willing to give Joseph Smith's attackers the benefit of every doubt.

"Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned . . . ." D&C 121:16.

I know this scripture, as all the rest, will have little meaning to you. I know your response to me will be something along the lines of, well, if I am cursed I am cursed. How can God expect me to have faith under these circumstances, etc. etc.?

But you, in particularly, are in error for posting anonymous attacks against the church and pretending, in real life (or so you say) to be a believing member.

May I suggest some changes:

1. Become more learned.

2. Be less hypocritical.

P


Excuse me, but you do not know anything about her knowledge or character other than a few posts here. Who are you to say she knows "little of this matter"? Are you suggesting that one cannot take the position that she does and be a faithful member? Even if that were true, it would not be hypocritical to believe the things she can and reject that which she can't.

Jesus called people hypocrites because he knew their hearts. You don't.

User avatar
Tarski
God
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:57 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by Tarski »

Runtu wrote:asbestosman mentioned in another thread his philosophy for dealing with enemies, and I realized that I don't consider anyone here my enemy, and I do not consider myself anyone's enemy. I am also not an enemy to the church. I have a calling, which I do to the best of my ability, even though I do not believe in the church. Yes, sometimes I vent my frustrations toward the church, but I don't hate it, and I don't wish it would cease to exist.

For the record, I think the church works for some people. I know a lot of people who would be far worse off if they did not have Mormonism in their lives. I don't believe I'm one of those people, but I don't begrudge them for getting something out of the religion that I don't.

What do you think? Are we enemies, or just people who disagree passionately?


I feel like I have a few buddies among the apologists and I don't like they idea of being enemies. I do like to be able to call it like I see it in terms of my assessment of Joseph Smith and the LDS church.

On the other hand, there are some who post in such a way that I fell they do think of me as an enemy. Maybe I am wrong but I feel like Pahoran couldn't stand to be in the same room with me.

Yoda

Post by Yoda »

Excuse me, but you do not know anything about her knowledge or character other than a few posts here. Who are you to say she knows "little of this matter"? Are you suggesting that one cannot take the position that she does and be a faithful member? Even if that were true, it would not be hypocritical to believe the things she can and reject that which she can't.

Jesus called people hypocrites because he knew their hearts. You don't.



Plutarch and Harmony have a history, Runtu, which I'm sure Harmony will address. Plutarch seems to think that Harmony is the devil incarnated. LOL

At any rate, you're a good guy for defending her honor...and I agree with you! ;)

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

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by Runtu »

Tarski wrote:I feel like I have a few buddies among the apologists and I don't like they idea of being enemies. I do like to be able to call it like I see it in terms of my assessment of Joseph Smith and the LDS church.

On the other hand, there are some who post in such a way that I fell they do think of me as an enemy. Maybe I am wrong but I feel like Pahoran couldn't stand to be in the same room with me.


It makes you wonder if we met under different circumstances and didn't know of our relationship toward the church, would we get along? I'd say we probably would.

I wouldn't mind sitting down over dinner with Pahoran. I'll bet it would be an interesting conversation. I just think that these boards lend themselves to a profound relaxation of normal rules of human kindness.

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

liz3564 wrote:
Excuse me, but you do not know anything about her knowledge or character other than a few posts here. Who are you to say she knows "little of this matter"? Are you suggesting that one cannot take the position that she does and be a faithful member? Even if that were true, it would not be hypocritical to believe the things she can and reject that which she can't.

Jesus called people hypocrites because he knew their hearts. You don't.



Plutarch and Harmony have a history, Runtu, which I'm sure Harmony will address. Plutarch seems to think that Harmony is the devil incarnated. LOL

At any rate, you're a good guy for defending her honor...and I agree with you! ;)


I believe the phrase is "devil incarnate."

No, I don't think anybody is the devil incarnate, least of all Harmony.

But, it seems to me that those on this particular board who hold themselves out at their local levels as active Latter-day Saints, but whom persist in attacking on an anonymous basis the Church and its leaders are, well, just plain hypocritical. The anonymity provided by the Internet is no excuse.

I don't have to be an NFL quarterback to critique Philip Rivers, nor to I have to know a person's heart to condemn them as hypocritical, nor do I have be completely free of hypocrisy myself. But, the objective facts speak for themselves as to Harmony and others on this board.

Such rank cowardice one exhibits to make anonymous posts on any topic of real significance involving real and known people. Do you think people discount your cowardice merely because this is the internet? Why can’t you reveal your real names and ward affiliations? What is wrong with fearing expulsion from the Lord’s true church?

And, indeed, Harmony is the lightest of lightweights, and I speak of her posts and not of her as a person. Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Yoda

Post by Yoda »

Such rank cowardice one exhibits to make anonymous posts on any topic of real significance involving real and known people. Do you think people discount your cowardice merely because this is the internet? Why can’t you reveal your real names and ward affiliations? What is wrong with fearing expulsion from the Lord’s true church?



Why do you post with an anonymous name? Just curious.

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

Post by Runtu »

Plutarch wrote:I believe the phrase is "devil incarnate."

No, I don't think anybody is the devil incarnate, least of all Harmony.

But, it seems to me that those on this particular board who hold themselves out at their local levels as active Latter-day Saints, but whom persist in attacking on an anonymous basis the Church and its leaders are, well, just plain hypocritical. The anonymity provided by the Internet is no excuse.

I don't have to be an NFL quarterback to critique Philip Rivers, nor to I have to know a person's heart to condemn them as hypocritical, nor do I have be completely free of hypocrisy myself. But, the objective facts speak for themselves as to Harmony and others on this board.

Such rank cowardice one exhibits to make anonymous posts on any topic of real significance involving real and known people. Do you think people discount your cowardice merely because this is the internet? Why can’t you reveal your real names and ward affiliations? What is wrong with fearing expulsion from the Lord’s true church?

And, indeed, Harmony is the lightest of lightweights, and I speak of her posts and not of her as a person. Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?


I don't claim to be an active member of the church. True, I officially hold a calling, but my bishop (and apparently everyone in ward council) knows of my beliefs. Is it hypocritical of me to not use my real name? I had never thought of it that way. I don't care if I get expelled from the church. Maybe they'd quit treating me like the ward "project."

I figure that we all have to find our way through life. Harmony is just doing what my bishop (and my wife and my father) counseled me to do: hold onto the things she can believe in and discard the rest. Maybe they're hypocrites, too.

Post Reply