Update: I have changed my mind and have decided against putting the no-whining, no-complaining rule in the comment policy.
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Pingback: OD Today: 22 January 2009 (late edition) « Online Discernment Today
The articles themselves generate the type of responses that are posted. An article can open-up the type of comments that are personal and accusatory towards individuals and groups. If the article has an underlining theme of “this is what evangelicals or Mormons are like and this is what they do” then the comments are going to reflect people’s personal bias, prejudices, personal experiences and opinions. The comment in the article that seems to have brought about the new comment policy had something to do with “Mormons turning the other cheek in the face of persecution……” That’s going to set off a lot of whinning and self-reighteous comments by the Mormons and a defensive reaction by evangelicals. This stuff gets personal. So my suggestion is, don’t post these types of articles and the problem that resulted in the new comment policy will probably go away.
To all: as an aside, last nights SKYPE was a ragged beginning, but a beginning nonetheless, stay with it AARON, I think the medium will reap big results, although I can see the potential for some really hot times……I like the risk and the possible reward.
this whole “YOU DIDN’T ANSWER MY QUESTION” thing is so juvenille. NONE of us are under some kind of COMPULSION to answer AnYBODY…..yes, it would be polite and what grownups do, but maybe if I don’t answer I”M
1 too stupid to intelligently respond
2. too lazy to do the research
3. too busy to do the research
4. caring for a sick wife, kid, or aging parent
5. worn out from last night’s rave
6. did I mention too stupid already……????? oh yeah, got it, #1
avoiding someone is lame, I get that , but come on people, life is WAY TOO SHORT for this…….
GERMIT
GERMIT,
I instituted a personal policy not to engage people directly but to talk about what I read here. For me, that works best because then I’m thinking about the topic rather than the people who post here. I’ve made some personal connections through MC and I talk with those folks via other venues. I’m mainly interested in the topics and not getting into a personal debate with someone. I’m not under any compulsion or obligation to engage people directly or answer their questions on demand. If people like my style and what I write, they can read it. I don’t get all concerned if someone doesn’t engage me. I really don’t care. I’m looking for well written and thoughtful comments. I especially like things that are clever, humorous and satirical. I’m in an area of the country where Mormons are about as rare as palm trees, so MC is my only exposure to the Mormon thinking process. I have one Mormon acquintance where I live (an exstudent) who comes from a long line of Mormons and has served a mission. We never talk about religion in specific terms. So I’ve come to see that the Mormons who show-up here are a particular type of Mormon. I really don’t generalize much to the entire population of Mormons realizing that two-thirds of those on the rolls aren’t active. I think those (inactive) Mormons are the real mission field for us as Christians along with those who are starting to figure out the Mormon program and need some answers. Those are the folks I write for, not the hard-core TBMs.
MR Germit,
I suspect your speaking of me with out using my name.
Let me add something, For me, It is more than merly saying a LDS member did not answer my question. While it is true, you do not have to answer any question asked, Mine goes deeper and to the heart of the Matter.
I was not merly asking a simple question, I was pointing out a false Doctrine that has NEVER COME TO PASS AND NEVER WILL.
That alone Shows JS is a FALSE PROPHET, And this false Prophet is leading millions to hell and needs to be expoused.
The LDS never answer these Questions of the own faith, instead they find flaws with the Bible and say, Look, The same case is also in the Bible, So either the Bible is False, or if You prove the Bible is Correct, then My Prophet is also True and correct because your Argument proving the Bible true appiles to JS as well, and that is simply not true.
If I asked any LDS member, What color is your Hair, Or where do you live, or Are you married, and they did not answer, I would agree with you, But this is a case of is their Prophet and Doctrine True or False. Do you understand? Rick b
Rick, I don’t think germit was talking about you.
If someone doesn’t answer you, and you feel like they should, then we can just let the readers observe the lack of response and make their own conclusions.
My aim is that this blog minimizes the complaints (and even whining), and maximizes substantive, hearty discussion on the important issues. Focus on people who are good conversational partners and make a habit of ignoring people who aren’t being constructive.
Aaron, You can ask Sharon Since I could be Wrong, But a long Time ago I told her, I for one wont Let the LDS get off the hook so easy, I call them out when they ingore Questions, If I recall correctly, She Agreed. You seem to not agree, your Both Mods, So I guess That just Shows not every one thinks like you or has your style and approach to witnessing to LDS, I believe that is why we are a Body, Some Hands, Some Feet, Or what ever part we are. I could be wrong, But I suspect to some degree you want all of us to be like you and have your Style. Rick b
Rick, if you reply to a Mormon and say, “I’m still waiting on an answer”, I’m not going to jump all over you. I do it too. “Complaining” in my view has a lot to do with attitude, and when someone starts complaining off-topic on a different thread, then it seems all the more inappropriate. I’m not trying to be legalistic about this. I’m trying to change the tone of this blog and make it a more consistent venue for substantive discussion.
Calling someone on the carpet for not answering important direct questions on core issues is something far more effective in person or over an audio conversation. If you ask someone a question, and they immediately, audibly hedge for all to hear, the impact is even more penetrating.
Rick: no, I had no particular person in mind, although some of your posts make me think that you might benefit from doing some kind of “approach overhaul”‘ . we all have to do that from time to time , I suppose. If I SPECIFICALLY want to point something out about your posts , I will deal with the Priesthood Holder himself…..and I know you’d do the same for me.
While we are on this topic: I really encourage you to let go of the idea of “not letting them off the hook…..” AARON is absolutely on target with this, and let me clearly say that I would NOT say that about all that’s been done at MC. This format, this medium puts a high premium on “poster autonomy” . If you were talking to someone IN PERSON and they shift the subject , or make some kind of lame excuse, that’s one thing, but I encourage you to think on the LIMITATIONS of blogging…..it just does NOT work the same, and you will just frustrate YOURSELF if you insist that it does. YES, people choose to be rude, mean, petty, or chicken online……but there is little, other than being a good example and praying for them (and yourself) that you can do about it.
I’m still very new at this blogging thing, I’ve put in less than 9 months, so I am still very much a rookie, but I am still convinced that you will not see success, Rick, in what you are trying to do if you INSIST on “not letting them off the hook”. People know when they are being forced or pushed, and most tend to just push back……
I appreciate your response to this post , or to anything else.
God help us both be effectual doers of HIS word, I probably need this prayer a heck of a lot more than you, bro….
!stCor16: 13,14 stay in the fight GERmIT
PS: the fact that the subject of the conversation is the deity of Christ, or the nature of GOD, or AnY doctrine, is neither here nor there…..the dynamic of what you are trying to do, whether it be the most essential theology, or what to buy at the convenience store, just is not going to work, you have no “leverage” other than an appeal to something positive, an appeal that can be ignored if they so choose….
To All: to second AARON. about “calling someone out” ….there have been times (the internal evidence for the BofM thread comes to mind) when I commented that
“hmmmmm, we’ve asked the questions and not heard much……the silence to me is deafening”…… but this does not have to be aimed at any one particular person….
I know , Rick. as you suggest, there ARE different styles and personalities……I guess know YOURSELF and know your TARGET AUDIENCE, as best you can.
FALCON: I can see where that style works for you…..and I do the very same thing here and there…..or address the topic generally, and if an LDS listener wants to jump in, great, if they don’t, well, that’s OK also. I’m also trying to follow out some conversations with SOME of the LDS, and I candidly admit, there are some where I think I’ve made some progress, and some where after a few tries, I decided it was a COLOSSAL waste of bandwidth….though trying to get somewhere with it might have been an OK idea.
I do not want to be the guy who grabs someone by the lapel and says “Now you listen here, heathen…….”
ONe thing that helps you out a ton, and something I will recommend to my church buddies that are learning apologetics is GROW A THICK SKIN, (easier said than done) ; this IS a battle, and don’tget all spastic when you look down and see the signs of battle; we all like to be treated well, but to REQUIRE that this be the case is to ensure frustration and hurt the cause.
and if any of my friends are doing evangelism , get offended, and start whining about PERSECUTION, they sure as ^&****& better be bleeding or have a limb broken, or I will show them persecution….. when MANY , christian and non, are suffering PHYSICALLY for their causes, throughout the world and NOT whining……. wow, who punched that button……????
We Christians seem to have this topic all to ourselves. As Christians, I think we have to ask what our purpose is…….personally…….for being on this site. Mine is to reach (with accurate information) the Mormons who are questioning Mormonism and come here and read, but who don’t post. That’s the narrow niche I’ve chosen. My guess is that the Mormon writers show-up here to guard their turf. The “turf” being those who are questioning Mormonism and maybe on their way out the door. I remember one case quite vividly where one of the Mormon posters tried some subtle scare tactics to get a newly out the door Mormon to get back into the program. It was really quite revealing and I was grateful I had the opportunity to witness the mind control technique first-hand. So maybe Rick’s rough and tumble approach isn’t for everyone, but it does have a way of smoking people out or calling them to account. The point for all of us Christians, I guess, is to bring people to eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.
Rick B, I know the comment policy is heavy on comments being germane to the topic initially raised, but since you raised the point that you believe Mormons are going to hell, I’d like to hear your explanations as to why this is the case.
I’m assuming you believe all non-Christians are going to hell (correct me if I’m wrong), and because you view Mormons as being non-Christians, they are also going to hell. No? So, in your opinion, are Mormons part of the larger group of hellions, or do you single them out for special burnings? The floor is yours.
Moderator’s note: Save it for another thread.
Falcon, Maybe not every one Likes my Rough and Tumble style, But I really believe from Reading the Bible, Paul was like that.
Then Sharon knows this to be true because I showed her all of this stuff and we spoke about it Via Private Email.
On my Blog to Mormons I have the same style I do here but only more blunt, and as a result I have had 4 blogs started about me, One was a Mormon who was honest that he was writing about me, One started His blog because I had mine and he was a Mormon Poster on this blog back in the very beggining before MRM made it their offical blog. Then I had two other blogs started about me, they stole my Photo and all my info from my blog to make it look like I was writing, but the they were saying it was me writing, but I was writting about my self, calling my self, Stupid, clueless and how I know nothing about Mormons.
I could not prove these last two were LDS but I suspect they were. Like I said Sharon saw these blogs for herself, and I also had on Guy attack me on my blog claiming they knew Sharon and I was Stealing info from Her Site and posting it on mine, So she came to my Blog to set the Poster Correct on that.
So “Christians” can say they dont like my Style, But Since I had 4 blog started about me, I think I Must have been saying something Correct, And it show Great perecution againt me, And no I am not complaing about that, I wear that as a badge of honor and use it to say, I must be doing something right if I get those kind of Attacks. Rick b
RicK: good post, I hope this doesn’t seem “two faced” because of what I already posted, but I tell you straight out I like your style, and think that being blunt in our post-modern age has a LOT going for it. the fact that you’ve been lied about shows you’ve probably made the father of lies mad about something. I’m glad that it’s not been enough to stop you. There are very few believers who do what we do (although it sounds like you’ve done more in your sleep than I’ve done from the couch).
let’s hope 2009 is a year where we see God’s name and Kingdom go forward with some small help from us.
GERmIT
let me know where you post……I know Berean hangs out at MarkCares from time to time
I have my mormon blog, a food blog, and I post here. I will never stop being blunt, If nothing else I will simply find new places to post if people do not like me being blunt and honest.
Frankly people are dying and going to hell, people are lying and wolves in sheeps clothing are killing the flock, I do not have time to pander to the wolves, I do not have time nor do I care to argue with believers who would rather allow wolves to come in and attack the flock because they are afraid to speak boldly to the wolves, and that’s not me, why do you think Falcon calls me “the hammer”.
I see Jesus and the apostles being bold blunt and honest. That is how I will always be. I also believe the scripture where Jesus says, when the son of Man returns, will I find faith on the earth.
Read this,
Let me ask this, if this verse is true, and I believe it is, then if the wolves are not going to spare the flock, then why should we spare the feelings of the wolves?
Also, when the Bible says that their will be wolves in sheeps clothing, then let me ask this question, where do the wolves get the sheep’s clothing? Do they buy it from the store? since the sheep do not willing hand over their hides, I suspect the wolves kill the sheep and we know Lucifer came to KILL and destory, so again, why not be blunt, honest and tell it like it is?
I know some will agree with me, but yet also I have been to many blogs or web sites that sadly Christians do not like me being honest and telling it like it is because the poor false prophets and wolves get their feeling hurt.
So I guess every one who cares more about what the false teachers, false prophets and wolves think, can tell God when they stand before Him, why their were more concerned for the decivers than those speaking the truth, and I would ask, why are you even sharing the Gospel if your going to be luke warm and water down the message. Remember, Jesus, not me, said, either be Hot or Cold, but not luke warm. I am Hot what about you? (who ever you are) those who are less than Hot, know who you are, I have my own thoughts, But I will give in on that point and for once not name names, even though Paul did drop names. Rick b
Mr Germit,
Let me add one thing.
I live in St Paul MN, and not far from me their is a mormon temple, Mormon bookstore and many Mormon church’s.
I have been to 3-4 mormon services and have gone with a friend and elder of my church. We prayed before going into the services and felt led not to say a word unless approached by LDS members and asked our thoughts. we were asked by LDS members what we thought, we were honest, but also polite and respectful and truthful. Guess what? we pointed out problems we had and they kicked us out.
We even sat in during a General confrence, I was asked after it was over what I thought, this was 2-3 years ago so I cannot remember the exact problem, But I have a 1920 triple combo, the president speaking contrdicted the D and C and the Book Miracle of forgivness.
When the MM asked me what I thought, I told him honestly the president contrdicted these books and explained where, why and how. The LDS mm took my Triple Combo and compared it to his, he accused me of lying but saw it matched his, he kept me and my friend away from every one and spoke to us for about an hour before getting mad and kicking us out.
Then a few years ago I took a two weeks paid vacation, spent my own money, took a friend and drove out to SLC, I kept in touch with Sharon via email and Phone to let her know how things were going. I slept in my car, rented hotel rooms only when I needed a shower and did the entire temple tour. I asked honest but blunt questions. I had the LDS call seceruity on my and my friend simply for asking how JS could be a true maryter for shooting 3 people and trying to jump out the window.
We were almost kicked out for that. I for one am not afraid to ask the hard questions. Sharon has even told me before she likes how I think, and look at things. So no matter what I will never stop sharing with LDS, I refuse to conform to how people think I should be PC or water down the message. I simple will move on. I agree with rules, but some rules I believe do not need to be so rigid that no one can honestly reply with out fear of being removed. again, were a body, not all the same.
As my pastor says, he can reach people with his style that others will never reach, and I will reach people that he or others can never reach. I have great respect for people who tell it like it is, I have no respect for people who must cow tow to the feelings of the wolves simply because the truth might hurt their feelings. Rick b
I recently had an exMo tell me it took him twelve years to work his way out of the maze. TWELVE YEARS! He was a muckity muck in the program so he was into it real deep. I think what happens is God’s Spirit goes to work and He is relentless for those whom He has called. I believe God will lead those folks to the information and people who can speak the Word in a manner in which it relates to that person’s circumstances. With some it’s like a wap and others like a hug. In the end it’s our job to sow seeds. That’s what we are commanded to do. We don’t know what the ground is like on which the seeds land. We sow seeds of eternal life through Jesus Christ. The security of knowing where one will spend eternity brings not only comfort but a sense of direction to the believer. Jesus said, “I have come that they might have life and have it abundantly”. God can use us to spread His Word despite our imperfections and fumbling of the ball now and then.
I’m responding to Ralph from the thread “Text in Context”, but I can’t seem to get a “reply” or “post new” button there.
Whilst commenting on the cultural aspects of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” communications, Ralph said “Maybe Martin from Brisi could help about the social aspect – he being a Pom and migrating down under. He has seen it from 2 continents.”
Possibly, this has relevance under this thread as well
Ralph,
Happy Australia Day!
You’re right that I’m a Pom who has emigrated down under. We also lived in Hong Kong for almost three years. In my earlier days I lived on a Kibbutz in Israel for 6 months and we have holidayed in USA on several occasions (we took a week’s holiday in New York over the Christmas Break – we had planned to spend a week in Israel but when they started talking about sending in the ground troops, we changed our plans).
I think the truth is that you will never please everybody – you will always offend someone. Also, written communications are the worst way of expressing criticism.
The rule I try to stick by is to try and hear (or read) my criticisms from the other person’s perspective. Or to find something that is analogous from my own perspective. I also do my best to allow the Christian Gospel to guide me.
For example, the Gospel teaches me that, because of my sin I’m not worthy to receive God’s love and Christ is all I need to enter into the highest heavens (Heb 4:16). In practical terms, this means that if you criticize me for being an idiot, you’re right on the money. Of course, I’m well advised not to return the “compliment” (Phil 2:3).
I was reading Rick B’s defence of his confrontational style. Rick, if you read this please pray for me because I’m more of a diplomat than you. Also Rick, if you ever think of taking your message to Asia, please know that there are acceptable ways to be confrontational and there are ways to be unacceptably offensive.
Perhaps the biggest surprise to me was in talking to a Australian Mormon Bishop. Without repeating the details, I thought I was being confrontational but not offensive by arguing openly that Joseph Smith and the LDS leadership could absolutely not be trusted. He reacted like I’d stuck a knife in his chest.
What surprised me was that the closest thing I knew of of his regard for JS was the reverence that Moslems hold Mohammad in. I suppose that I had got so used to people criticizing the Bible and Jesus, that I thought that everybody with religious convictions would have come to some kind of acknowledgment that their opponents consider those same precious convictions to be a heap of “fertilizer”.
But, here’s where Christ steps in again. From the Christian perspective, I am free to think that your convictions are a heap of the proverbial, but that does not make me a better person than you and it does not make you a worse person than me. We have a duty to promote and defend truth, because that is what sets people free (John 8:32). However, before the throne of God, its not the purity of our theology that counts, but our faith in Christ.
The other edge to this sword, of course, is that if your religion promotes faith in your religion and not faith in Christ, then you’re in big trouble.
I like Aaron’s earlier comments about Jesus’ strategies for communication. I believe that Christians need to work hard at finding ways to communicate the Gospel that are meaningful to the people that we’re communicating to. Jesus did not back down from the truth and he remained engaged with the people he intended to redeem. The fact that the Temple Mob “got’ the message was reflected in the “solution” they came up with (Matt 12:14).
P.S sorry about the length of the post.
Wow,
This new policy was supposed to be aimed at the LDSwho whinge about the ‘conditions’ on this site. There is only one LDS member who has made a comment on this policy here and it was positive. All the rest are non-LDS and most of it has been negative.
This site is a public domain where people are free to come and go – there is no captive audience. There are rules for this site and some peole who moniter the posts’ conformity to these rules. So the point is – if you don’t like the rules or policing of it you are free to go.
As far as answering people, I generally try to answer the questions directed at me, but if I have answered the question a few times in what I think is reasonably understandable language, and the person I am discussing with still does not understand I generally leave it at that. i have had this happen to me as well and I understand that its nothing personal. There are better things I (and others) can do than trying to explain something 10 times over.
RickB, I understand your zeal and why you are ‘no nonsense’. I sometimes wish I can be like that in spreading the true word of God. I too do not wish to see you suffer the Second Death – I wish you were on the correct path to Heavenly Father and His glory in the Celestial Kingdom. You see, just like you think/know you are correct, I know I am correct in my faith in Jesus Christ, and I have my evidence, both spiritual and temporal, to support my faith.
In some regards history shows us that there are a variety of approaches to defending the Faith. The early Church had to battle, through debate, the heretics and those attempting to promote an aberrant view concerning the nature of God. The folks in the middle ages took a dim view of heresy, choosing such techniques as burning people at the stake. That was a pretty severe approach. Now, as far as this site is concerned, the Christians continue the spiritual battle clearly articulating who God is, what He did for us, and what eteranl life is. I don’t know if there is any “soft” approach when it comes to dealing with heretics. On this site, Christians are dealing with a hard core bunch of Mormons who have given themselves over totally to a spirit that opposes God in a most cunning and deceitful manner. The power of the enemy, in promoting a blasphemous view of God, is promoted by Mormonism. So it’s understandable why the Christian contributors here get very pointed, blunt and perhaps militant. The Bible tells us that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. “Fear” in this context means “revere”. Mormons openly mock the living God by substituting an idol. As Christians we could ignore Mormons but they’re out there pedling their heresy to a largely unsuspecting public and proclaiming that they are the “real” Christians. So we take up the challenge of defending the Faith vigorously and without compromise.
Falcon, I agree with you and let me add this.
I was posting on a “Christian” Website, I quoted Scripture saying things like, Hell is real, their is a second Death, Quoted Gal 1:8-9 and things of that nature. One Christian get getting mad at me telling me not to say these things.
I pointed out, this is Scripture and it seems he does not know his Bible, So finally he became a Mod on the board and kept removing every thing I posted. So No beating around the Bush, I told him he was seeker friendly and so luke warm I dont believe he knew his Bible or maybe even Jesus. He of couse deined all this telling me I was wrong.
I pointed out that If Paul says, If you deny Jesus and teach a false Gospel you will go to hell, or if Paul calls down Blindness upon a false teacher thats ok, or I suggested he read Peter, or timothy or even Jude, he did not like it but agreed it was Scripture.
So then I said, If Jesus can tell these People they are Blind, or white washed tombs or About Hell, it’s ok, But if I speak about Hell, or tell someone that they have a false Gospel they are going to hell, Or if I call a person a child of the Devil as Jesus did, or call blindness down upon someone as Paul did, these so called Christians would call for my head.
Their reply was, your not Jesus, Peter, Paul, Etc. I said, where do you think these guys learned it from? They were with Jesus, Paul even said, Follow me as I follow Jesus. So I finally proved my Point to them, If any of you know who the Bible teacher/scholar Chuck Missler is, He is a great teacher who knows the word, I went to his website and Pulled an article he did on the topic of Hell, It was full of Scripture and very ling, I posted that on this website and never told people it was from Chuck, I never said I wrote it either, I simply posted it.
The “Christians” were so Offended they pulled it right away,, Then I told them, See, I post Scripture and you remove it, then I told them it was from Chuck, They knew of Chuck but did not care, then they kicked me off the website. Sadly about 5 months later one of the LDS posted a poll asking if I should be allowed back, All but one LDS said yes, all but both Mods said yes, That is sad that the LDS were more loving and forgiving than my so called brothers, and all I did was give Scripture and speak in a truthful no nonsence way.
I’m Not sorry, But I will stand before God like everyone else, I’m not perfect and will give an answer for a lot of Stuff, But I wont worry about standing Before Him and trying to explain why I gave into the feelings of killer wolves trying to Kill the sheep. Rick b
Ralph: your paragraph about this website and others being “public domain…..and people having the freedom to come and go as they please….” was exactly what I was fumbling to say. The only addition I’d make , which you alluded to, is that private individuals moderate this public bandwidth. Each moderater, or group of those, is free to set the rules and parameters of the conversation. Don’t like the rules ?? Find one where you do…. or learn to live with them…..not that complicated. Or of course, start your own and make the rules yourself.
I smiled at your attempt to be blunt……a lttle like Peter O’Toole doing Mark Driscoll.
FALCON: your point about many approaches is well taken, and I think Rick was saying that with his comments about us being “the body”. Let’s hope that there is permanence for the work of our hands, and minds.
GERmIT
Mr Germit said
To a point I would agree, Here is my thoughts. I was Posting Here before this Blog existed, I was posting under the Q/A section, Then Sharon Started a blog, She allowed a lot to be said or posted and I challgened Many an LDS. Then This became the Offical MRM blog, I still challanged many, The Rules so to speak have been alterd many times.
I agree on the part about Banning Severe trash talking, name calling Etc. But Once Aaron came here, In my Opinion He has been very Rigid and to the point of being Legalistic about things, But thats just my opinion.
I think since the rules have “Evolved” Many times, they could Evolve a little to not be so Rigid, But I honestly dont expect that to happen. So I will stick around, but just not reply nearly as much, I will simply focus my Views in other areas, and reply to Subjects that are really close to me. Rick b
Rick, if I have been too legalistic, I apologize. I’m still trying to figure out the whole moderation thing out. If I under-moderate, sometimes it looks like things are spiraling downward. If I over-moderate, it makes reasonable people feel constricted and censored.
I think a good thing you guys could pray for is a comment rating system plugin that works with WordPress 2.7, and that resembles the system at Digg.com. That way the blog could be more self-moderated by the commenter community than by me.
What I yearn for is good, hearty discussion that edifies people, that is mainly about history, theology, scripture, and philosophy.
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:29-32)
I still feel young and impetuous about a lot of things and I’m still learning.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Aaron, honestly I know you cannot win, Me, I would rather see you under Moderate.
Out side of the thing you suggest, Since I am so low tech I have no Idea what it is.
Here Is my thoughts and maybe others can Chime in. I am all for no trash talking Name calling, But out side of that, here is what I would like to see.
I call people out like I said, If some one asks a question and they do not answer, Yes I will bring it up in other threads, To some they hate it, Germit said the Silence speaks loudly, I agree, but at the same time, I bring it up again simply to remind people that the LDS are Silent on Questions, It is merely our different views on how we see something.
I remind people about the silence in case someone did not read the topic, I want People, LDS included that they did not answer a question, But For me, I say, dont be so strict on things like that. But then Again, LDS might want you to be since They dont want to be called to account.
I suppose you could talk with Sharon about the Issues I bring up, I did send her a private Email with some of these issues, and unless she changed her mind, their was a time where she liked my Call them on the carpet attidue.
Another thing, and I dont think I am alone on this is, Questions naturaly arise in all topics, People will start go get off on Side tangents And I have no problem with that, The problem I see is, You might dis agree on the side tangent, and while we posters feel what we said fits the topic at hand, you dont. That to me comes down to a matter of personal view, And I did make a case for myself as to why I felt my “Side” Issue fit the subject, But yet you did not agree.
Pray about that Issue or Speak with Sharon or Both, as She has wisdom in these Side issue areas, since these things happened before you came in, The over “policing” on these issues can frustrate people on both sides to the point that people will reply less.
Not naming names but A poster did write me and said, he notices some Christians posting less, And we/You dont really want that. I think part of the problem is, out side of getting into Nasty attacks, we all have different ways of saying something, You might not agree with my Style or vice versa, But that does nor me were not being used by the Lord.
As a side note, My life verse, and I have it Tattoted on my arm is, Romans 2:11. For God does not show favortism.
I like that one because it says to me, God uses me even if I am not as “Schooled” As you, or I am not a pastor, Or I have ripped Jeans and a Mohawk, Or you fill in the blank. But that is just a few thoughts from me to think about, and Others I’m sure will agree and some will Disagree. Rick b
Hey Martin,
sound like you’ve been around. So many places in your life, mus t have been a good experience seeing different cultures and learning to live in them. Was it easy to meld into the Aussie culture or are you still partially Pom?
As for Australia Day – its too wet down here at the mo to have a barbie. It would’ve been nice to have one but what can you do?
BTW, I lived in Logan for a year and a half from 98-99 and I worked at the RBH up in Herston.
Friends, this thread on the new comment policy gives me a good opportunity to share something that has been weighing on my mind for at least the past several months. One of the reasons I barely post on here anymore is because I have become so weary of each side complaining about the other. Many of the comments have been in the vein of “Those Ev. Christians/Mormons…..I can’t believe them…..they always…..etc.”. I also take issue with the attitude of a few of our Ev. posters who wear their blunt/aggressive stance as a badge of pride. There’s nothing wrong with being blunt when it seems appropriate to the conversation, but I think often statements are unnecessarily perjorative. (Sorry, Falcon and Rick B, but I am thinking of both of you. While I agree 100% with your content, I often disagree in how the content is delivered).
Let me share why I think it is so important to be careful in how we are perceived. First, I think it would be helpful to keep the words of 1 Pet. 3:8-16 always present in our minds. These verses exhort us to not repay “insult with insult, but with blessing (vs. 9). We must “seek peace and pursue it.” And then, the clincher: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. BUT DO THIS WITH GENTLENESS AND RESPECT, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed by their slander.” (Vs. 15-17). We have Christ living in our hearts, constantly guiding and checking us. We can and should share the truth, but with a constant attitude of respect and gentleness. I am not suggesting that we try to mislead our LDS friends with obfuscations or beating around the bush. That would be wrong. And of course, we should never water down doctrines to make them sound more palatable. That would be equally abhorrent.
There is another reason why we need to be especially careful in how we interact with LDS posters on here. From what I have read, from what I have observed on here, and from what an ex-LDS friend has told me, Mormons are very sensitive to a spirit of contention. Even if a person is not contentious, anything that makes them feel uncomfortable in their faith or leads them to question things can be viewed as “the spirit of contention”. Several months ago, my ex-LDS friend and her husband were discussing some of the reasons why they no longer believe in Mormonism with her cousin and her husband. . Suddenly, the husband exclaimed, “I feel a spirit of contention in this room, and we need to stop talking about these things right now!” No one else was shouting or upset (or contentious). He was the one who was agitated. But the questions they were raising made him deeply uncomfortable, and he concluded that it was because of the spirit of contention. Wouldn’t it be tragic if we were sharing God’s truth, but we turned off our listeners because we truly were contentious?
Of course, we often can’t avoid being offensive. The gospel is plenty offensive all on its own. Who wants to be told that their own righteousness is not enough? Who wants to be told that they aren’t right with God? But our primary concern in presenting the gospel (Mormons, I realize of course that we differ in our definitions of what the gospel entails) is to present it and get out of the way. We want people to see Christ, not us. We want people to read and value what we have to say, even if they disagree, because they know we respect them. When people read my comments, I want them to see the content, and not me.
Now, there have been quite a few LDS posters on here over the past year who have been plenty contentious. But my concern is not with them. And to be honest, if they make their position look unattractive by insults or complaining, so much the better! (Sorry, Mormons).
Well, I’m glad I got this off my chest. It has bothered me for quite some time. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I do think it was right for me to share my concerns. I wish I could be on here more often. The other reason why I don’t come on much is because I had lower-grade chemo last year and was not able to care for our daughter in the way that I wanted to. Now that I have energy, I just don’t feel right about being on the computer much.
I hope everyone knows that my concerns were shared with love.
Megan
Rickb,
I addressed your question on YOUR blog a couple of days ago. So you can stop whining here about it not being addressed. OK?
If you want to go to a forum where the moderation is very fair and open go to blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/
But before you bring up an issue there, you may want to read some of the posts. People there don’t like to re-address issues that have already been addressed.
Where as this site loves to rehash the same old issues over and over again.
Cheers.
Megan wrote:
We want people to see Christ, not us. We want people to read and value what we have to say, even if they disagree, because they know we respect them. When people read my comments, I want them to see the content, and not me.
wow…………that’s pretty much it.
Megan, great job, you are in our prayers daily, check back now and again.
GERMIT
GB, I’ll be re-addressing the same issues until the day I die, especially the nature of God and justification by faith apart from works. They might be boring to you, but they are the most life-changing topics in the universe to discuss and herald.
Imagine, for example, being on a blog that engages secular atheism, and then having an atheist complain, “Why do you keep coming back to the resurrection of Christ topic? It’s already been debunked by us atheists, you don’t ever have to address it again!” Do you see how silly that sounds? It is likewise silly for us to hear complaints about repeat-focus on the nature of God, priesthood, scripture, heaven/hell, temples, salvation, grace, false prophets, the character of Joseph Smith, etc.
Also, this blog isn’t mainly a venue of original academic research. Most of what we do it distill and disseminate what brighter Christian apologists, scholars, pastors, and authors have been saying for a long time, sometimes for over two thousand years.
GB, I invite you to contact me on Skype and do the same with me as Ralph did (although Ralph and I didn’t initiate audible conversation because of any issue of complaining). My username is aaronshaf.
Just to let every one know before I post what I am going to say, I am not going to keep on going on and on.
Megan, I must disagree with you on the Spirit of Contention Idea for these reasons.
One thing I myself cannot stand is people who to some degree or another do not know their Bible and simply Are Luke warm or try and appease the LDS.
I say that because I saw Megan’s reply to me, And this is my thought. She says the LDS will not listen to my Style or Falcon because they will fall back onto the “Spirit of contention nonsense” I so disagree for two reasons.
1. No LDS member who Stands before God on the day of Judgment can honestly use the excuse and say, I rejected your Truth because I felt the truth was being Said in a contentions way.
To me that is merely an excuse to not hear the truth.
2. A long Time ago I was telling Sharon, Since it blesses her so to hear the Good stories of me Sharing Jesus with LDS, And I forwarded many Email replys to her to bless and encourage her, or sometimes Ask her advice Since I do not know everything.
Anyhow I was sharing with Two LDS members at a friends House, The one said to me, I feel a spirit of contention, Boldly I told him he was full of Crap and was simply looking for an excuse to not talk. He got mad, but his partner respected me so much for my honesty, he spoke with me two more times before being moved on, and his last talk with me, he was so sick with the Flu, he asked me if I could pick him up at his house and go to my friends to speak.
Then we kept in touch Via snail mail for months, I still have his letters and photos he sent me. I suspect some of his peers found out about our talks and stepped in and took my letters before he could see them. But I cannot prove that, so yes My style does minister to some people.
Then you could argue that Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy and the list goes on, that that had a spirit of Contention. Not I agree with the verses you posted, but yet I give Both sides, I tell them Hell is real, yet so is Grace and Love, we cannot be one sided, so How can you tell someone they are Deciving people, leading them to hell and are going themselves, and sound loving about it? Do you speak in a weak and crackling voice?
I honestly think the Enemy simply wants us Believers to keep going back and forth and saying, My style is best and not yours. We all need to remember, God is our Masters, we give an account to him, and it really is him that causes the Heart to turn, we simply are nothing more than Messangers.
One last thought, Look at Jeremiah, One of the greatest prophets. spoke for 38-40 exactly what God wanted him to say, How many came to Christ as a result? ZERO DID.
Now Look at Jonah, He ran away, then when God sent Him back, He preached Doom and death for 40 DAYS, How many were Saved? ALL, EVERYONE OF THEM, THOUSANDS. So who are we to judge. Like I said, I must be doing something Right since my style brought Great persacution from the Enemy. Rick b
Rick, I do believe God uses you to witness to LDS, very much so. The very fact that you come on this blog means that you care deeply about them. And you know so much about their history; far more than I do. I have learned so much from the many sources you cite.
That being said, I think it is worthwhile, from an apologetics standpoint to engage in a way that is culturally sensitive. (The spirit of contention issue). The fact is, this is an issue that runs through Mormonism and does affect how many hear us. To secular eyes, Ev. Christians and Mormons probably seem almost identical. But although we may appear similar on the surface, and even though we use many of the same terms, we all know that our definitions are very different. And it’s not just definitions that are different; our worldview and and mindsets are very, very different. So there’s that to consider. From observing my LDS friends in real life, and from what I’ve read, it does seem that Mormons really prize politeness and “appearing” nice. It’s not that my friends are pretending to be nice, they really are!
When missionaries train for a specific country to minister to, they spend many hours studying all the cultural nuances. I once read that, when witnessing to Muslims, it is very important to use an unmarked Bible. To them, writing notes in the margins seems like defacing a holy text. Wouldn’t it be awful if I were witnessing to a Muslim friend, and instead of seeing the truth in the Bible, all she noticed were my ink scribbles?
This morning a friend visited me who is southern but has spent some time in the North. (I currently live in the southeast). I wanted to ask her something that had been puzzling me for awhile. Last fall my daughter asked me if we could invite a little girl from her preschool to come over and play. A couple weeks later I met the girl’s mother at a preschool event. I introduced myself and told her that my daughter really enjoyed playing with her little girl at school. We smiled and all was going well. “Here,” I said, handing her a slip of paper. “This is my contact information. Why don’t you give me a call and we can set something up?” Her face looked very uncomfortable and she reluctantly put the paper in her pocket. I knew I had done something wrong, but couldn’t think what. I asked my friend where I had gone wrong, and she shook her head and said, “You were too pushy.” I couldn’t believe it. That was pushy? She told me I should have established who the mother and I knew in common, especially families. “Why should I care who we know in common and who our families are?” I asked. “I don’t care about that stuff.” “But that’s the way it is,” my friend said patiently. Where I’m from, a person is judged on what kind of person they are, not what families/friends they have in common. It offended my northeastern sensibilities that people here care about such things. But I’m not going to get anywhere if I don’t follow the protocol. I like Paul’s example in Athens. He knew that from a cultural standpoint, the best way to earn credibility with the citizens was to sit around day after day discussing things with the wannabe philosophers. His whole speech was tailored in a way that made the Athenians want to listen to him….at least, until the resurrection part.
That being said, I do think it’s possible to go too far with tact in Ev./Mormon interactions. I don’t think we should ever beat around the bush or be namby-pamby. That would be dishonest, and even worse, it could keep the truth of a person’s eternal destiny from them. That would be wrong. I have told my LDS friends my views on their salvation. They were pretty shocked, but accepted it. And I agree, every person is responsible for the choice they made when they stand before God some day. But the thing is, Satan has so many tools at his disposable. We don’t know who reads this blog. There may have been people who were questioning their faith, but then were turned off by various statements made. In fact, I remember a couple from last year. We don’t want to help the Enemy keep people astray. That being said, we also don’t want to lead people astray by being vague about what we believe. While I agree with the efforts of many seeker-friendly churches, I don’t like that they emphasize our feelings over God’s holiness. It also makes my skin crawl when people package Jesus and try to sell Him like a product.
So, you know my thoughts. We can agree to disagree. The main thing I take issue with is not so much bluntness but when disparaging comments are made about Mormons as a group. I think it turns both sides into enemies and I don’t find it to be helpful. However, I think I could learn a lot from your example of boldness. And I really do mean it when I say that God uses you.has used you to minister to LDS.
Mods, I’m sorry my comments have been so long today! Shorter ones next time.
Ralph,
One reason we came here was because it was so easy to “meld” into the culture. There are some differences, however, that still keep me amused.
For instance, the Aussies take great pleasure in beating the Poms at Cricket (nothing wrong with that). However, they see it as knocking the Poms down a peg or too because they consider the Poms to be too “up themselves” (self-assured and arrogant). Recently, when asked about what he thought of English society, the Archbishop of Canterbury remarked that “we don’t seem to like ourselves very much”, which I think is very true. Ironically, its the Poms who always find something wrong with the way they are and the Aussies who are much more comfortable in their own skins.
The flip-side, as you rightly observed earlier, is that the Aussies are so comfortable with the way they are, getting them motivated to address serious issues (like religion) is like trying to push the proverbial uphill.
Its often been observed that culturally, Australia sits somewhere between England and the USA. Some Americanisms are gaining ground here, like the flag-waving on Australia Day (us Poms hold much less reverence for flags – to us they are more bits of cloth designed to stop you shooting at the wrong ship). Another one is the seasonal epidemic of Christmas lights on peoples’ houses, which seems to be getting more acute every year, much to my delight.
The differences that Americans might observe are the quantity of beer that goes in and the quantity of expletives that come out. Personally, I’m not offended at the colourful language, unless it expresses some genuine animosity. I also think that it actually might be closer to the Biblical colloquial than the more purified public American (why is it called the “Dung Gate” in Neh 3:14 – because its downstream of the Temple, of course).
You’ll also know that if an Aussie mate gives you a highly imaginative insult, he’s actually paying you a compliment. Such “compliments”, though, will get lost in translation, especially on forums like this. It might rob these posts of a little lustre, but the alternative is to feed the trolls.
The tolerance of public nudity is another difference. Not every Aussie walks around in his “Adamic” suit, like the fictional Prime Minister in that episode of “The Simpsons”, but Americans are definitely more prudish, and some would be quite alarmed (or perhaps distracted) by the plunging necklines of some of our female formal wear.
The differences in the toleration of public nudity and violence are more pronounced between Asian and Western cultures, at least if what gets published in newspapers is a guide. For example, there are (or perhaps were) several English newspapers who would publish photos of topless women as a daily feature (in case you ask, I was not a subscriber). Pictures of blood and violence, however, would be shunned.
In Hong Kong the exact reverse was true. It was the baring of too much skin that was considered to be highly offensive, whilst the details of some gory murder might be explored in graphic detail. Some years ago in Hong Kong, I noticed a front page photo, in lurid colour, of a man lying on the grass with his arm, ripped out by the socket, lying next to him in a pool of blood. The poor fellow had tied his arm to the rope in a tug-of-war competition and the opposing team had obviously got the better of him. As far as these Hong Kong newspapers were concerned, pubic gore was OK, but public nudity was not.
Cultures change and shift, and its fascinating to see what is expected and what is not, or what is considered “normal” and what is not. We think that we are “normal” and “regular”, but a visitor from another time or another place might thing we spend too much energy on pointless or irrelevant things.
Paradoxically, people don’t change, whatever culture they are in. We respond to love or rejection in the same way. When it comes to offending some cultural norm, we respond in the same way whether we are American or Iranian or whatever. What I mean is, most people sense if someone is deliberately being offensive, or if they are just being “not from here” and they cut the slack accordingly. In these situations, a healthy dose of patience and respect, with a shot of self-deprecating humour, will get you out of most cultural pickles. Some responsible research will also help you avoid them in the first place. A smile can be understood in any language. A couple getting too “frisky” on a public beach is as offensive in Dubai as it is in Sydney, though the penalties of the law will vary.
I have a settled conviction that the spreading of the Gospel is not simply the exporting of a particular culture. Christ redeems people within the cultures that they live in. Its not that I don’t think its important to address the public expression of culture, but if the story of Noah tells us something, its that you can’t change people’s hearts by changing the circumstances in which they live. That’s the prerogative of the Holy Ghost through the agency of the redeeming Gospel of Christ.
PS Thanks for indulging me this rather long-winded rant.
Megan,
I’ve started several replies to your comments and have deleted them and started over. Let me just say that we’re different people you and I. We have different personalities and approaches to dealing with the topics of discussion on this particular forum. I’m the only one in my family, for example, who likes hot spicey food. I don’t get many requests from my wife and daughter to try what I’m eating in a restaurant. In fact they laugh when we go into Olive Garden or Red Lopster and I tell the waitress at our table to put some of that ground pepper on my Ceasar’s Salad. They know what’s coming. My eyes start watering and I’m gulping water like a mad man and through gasps I’m saying “Man I love that stuff.” I think you get my point. I’m sorry if I offend you with how and what I write. I really am. For your own peace of mind, just pass on by it.
Megan: thanks for the second post, long-winded and all.
I like your balance of love for the truth , and love for your audience (reflected in attention to the package that the truth comes in) You probably lean toward the non-confrontational end of the spectrum, but you don’t “smell” post-modern to me, I’m sure in your own ways, you are making God’s gospel known.
Find time and opportunity to keep writing, you are obviously gifted there.
GERMIT
PS to Rick: no one here is twisting your arm or telling you to do this or that…..take what you’ve heard as counsel, but to your own Master you stand or fall; your posts, views, and testimonies are always welcome. some have disagreed with you here a little (Meagan and myself) but we’ve also pointed out your strengths. Keep at it Priesthood Holder. GERMIT
I think it’s important for Christians to be reminded about what we’re dealing with here on this site and be honest and not put our index finger over our lips and in essence say to guys like Rick and me “SHHHHHHHHH they might hear you”. The Mormons who show-up here and post aren’t the sweet little Mary Sue Mormon from down the block. The typical Mormon posting here is a male, big daddy warlock Mormon, who thinks he’s on the road to becoming a god. He’s full of spiritual pride, arrogance and is exemplifying all of the characteristics of the founder Joseph Smith. He’s surrendered himself over to a spirit of deceit and proclaims darkness to be light. Now what kind of debating and/or human relations technique will win this type of Mormon to Christ? None! The apostile Paul was right when he said that we don’t battle against flesh and blood but that we battle against spiritual forces of darkness. If you’d ask me what my honest opinion is regarding if any of this particular brand of Mormon can be won to Christ, I’d say zero chance. So in the light of this should we become a polite little debating society? We’ll become nothing more than people who want to show-off that we can intellectually ride our theological bikes without our hands on the handle bars.
The point isn’t to ssssh anyone who is focusing on the on-topic issues. Rather it’s to give people who aren’t doing so a different venue for their complaining etc.
Discussion here doesn’t have to be “polite” in the strict and full Victorian sense, but it should be reasonable and self-controlled enough to allow for a sustained, contextual focus on the important issues. If you don’t think you can be instruments of the conversion of Mormon participants here, then see the conversation and debate as an opportunity to help lurkers see the issues fleshed out.
If I was a lurker, I wouldn’t want to waste my time with overly changed back-and-forth personal attacks and personal complaints, nor whining about how religious criticism of Mormonism is inherently mean, etc. The seekers out there whom God is working through want the truth, so our aim is to create a venue where the truth can be showcased in a dialectic manner.
I think Rick is probably right about it being better to under-moderate than over-moderate, and let the chips fall there they will. Advice taken.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
FALCON; your post, to me , is an example of going to an extreme, the wrong kind of extreme, needlessly. Could some of the LDs posters be “big daddy warlocks” ?? Sure, that’s a possibility, but just the direction of
“the LDS who post here are like…..” is just plain a bad idea, and is doomed. the whole gist of my remarks (and I think Megan’s are similar) are KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE, and I can’t help but think you are taking your specific (valid) experiences with SOME LDS and painting with a very broad brush. I welcome the insights (yours included) of those who’ve been around the MC coffee machine for a few years, but certainly there is a continuum of intersest, flexibility, and openness to dialogue. Come to think of it, that’s as true for OUR side of the aisle, as it is theirs….There are some I won’t spend a 5 word post on, and they might be saying the same to me, for all I know.
Some have made up their mind for good (GOD knows who they are) and are unassailable…… but to throw all LDS in that basket does not, and will not help get those who ARE interested, even a fraction, closer to the real gospel.
Also: to show tact, when needed, is not always a sign of weakness or caving in or compromising. Again, everthing is situational and depends on what is being said to whom….and the obvious: “what would Jesus have us say, and HOW” the “HOW” matters
Not trying to play the Holy Spirit for you or anyone else, but there’s no need to color this thing with just one angry crayon.
I hope you don’t mind my speaking openly about this, and I hope you don’t take it as some kind of attack on you or your motives. Reconsider, bro, you can do this thing at a higher level.
GERMIT
AARON”: your point about lurkers is great, and sometimes that fact alone helps talk me down off my ledge…….thanks
Falcon, I really appreciate the fact that you wrote several posts and deleted them before writing a reply. It’s hard to voice concerns/criticisms without feeling like we are attacking each other. I have to be honest, it was really hard for me to write something critical of you and Rick. It’s not just that we play for the same team, so to speak, but I have a real soft spot for the 2 of you and your refreshing “cut the crap” mentality.
You have never written anything that has offended me; I just ask that you consider how your comments might offend others. I just don’t see how it could be helpful to tarr all Mormons with the same brush (or the ones on here, at any rate), by saying they are full of pride and arrogance. Does seeking after becoming a god naturally lead to a human pride in one’s own righteousness? Of course! But all the Mormons I know personally love God very much, and honestly try to please Him every day. It’s not just that they are trying to earn their way to heaven (they are–sorry LDS friends, but I do believe that). But they genuinely want to make God happy. It breaks my heart to see the sincerity and devotion in them for a counterfeit gospel. So, I guess when I see those kind of comments, I am thinking of them, and thinking about what good and heartfelt people they are. I can’t say enough how it grieves me that they think they have the truth! There have been at least a few LDS posters on here over the past year who have been arrogant, rude, and downright snide. So, I can see how you would feel like that, but honestly, with some of the comments you’ve made, how would they feel about you?
I keep on thinking of Arthur Side on here (I think it was him), who had some LDS missionaries over when he was seeking. Oh, actually I think he talked about it on his blog. Anyway, there were some Christian guys in his apartment building who saw the missionaries come in, and made all sorts of hostile and rude comments. He said that the example of the Christian guys made him much more open to the LDS missionaries’ message. Do we really want to have something like that on our heads? What I’m saying is, it is absolutely our responsibility to present the gospel, but it is also our responsibility to present it in as effective a manner as possible—and no, we don’t have to resort to being cagey or watering things down either. Ultimately, it is God’s responsibility who accepts the gospel, but we want to be the best agents we can be!
Anyway, I am probably beating a dead horse here. We know each other’s view on this, and that is good. And, I think we know that we wish each other the best!
Falcon,
You use the word “arrogance”, this is the meaning of that word –
Arrogance
Ar”ro*gance, n. [F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.] The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.
Under this meaning, most of us on this site, including you, are arrogant. We make undue claims about the other religion. At times people have a ‘proud contempt of others’ including the “male, big daddy warlock Mormon, who thinks he’s on the road to becoming a god.” We all think we are in the right religion and most of us will not change that self-assumption because we all claim to have our proof of our beliefs.
I could go on with examples but the point is – we should try to see the beam in our eye before pointing the mote out in the other person’s eye. Yes we should not beat about the bush but we should also not be overbearing, brash or unloving. There is a time and a place for everything and on this site there are those who do not interact, just read. Keep them in mind instead of your unwinnable male, big daddy warlock Mormon, who thinks he’s on the road to becoming a god – then you might start bringing souls to your side of the fence.
PS – I had to laugh at your description of ‘me’ as I guess I am one of the ones who you are talking about.
Oh no there goes my arrogance again – assuming that its all about me!!!!
Ralph, the insinuation that it is arrogant to think we are in the right religion depends on the idea that we can’t duly know with a meaningful degree of certainty. I would challenge this postmodern idea from two angles: 1) This goes against Mormonism’s own teaching of the attainment of absolutely pure, direct knowledge of the truthfulness of Mormonism via a private internal emotional testimony experience. 2) Just as it is arrogant to make undue claims to know something, it is likewise arrogant to make undue claims about not being able to know about something.
In Deuteronomy 29:29 God’s testimony says, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Thus, it is arrogant to think we can know more than God has revealed, and it is arrogant to think we can only know less than God has revealed.
The problem with a postmodern approach to knowledge and epistemology, which emphasizes uncertainty or the lack of accessibility to reasonable certainty, is that it overly interprets certainty as arrogant when it isn’t. Of course, there is the other danger as well: Those who over-assess the amount or the kind of certain knowledge that is attainable certainty overly interpret provisionality or uncertainty as arrogant when it isn’t.
Aaron,
Since this blog is not about which religion is right and which is wrong I put it in terms that Falcon, et al. could agree on.
I know I am following Heavenly Father’s and Jesus’ path and that you are in the path of error. I have had spiritual confirmation of this from God.
But my point above is what Falcon said – He believes that he is in the right religion so he says that it is arrogant and presumptuous of us LDS to claim that we are correct and everyone else is wrong and that we will not change. Whereas, from my standing, it is Falcon, et al. that is being arrogant and presumptuous for claiming that they are in the right and everyone else is in the wrong and they will not change.
No matter how humble someone can be in their faith and religion, it will always come across as being proud, arrogant, presumptuous, etc by the other crowd. Especially since the only ‘real proof’ is from God, Himself through spiritual confirmation. If there was no lack of historical, physical and archaeological evidence then why aren’t all the historians, scientists, archaeologists and the rest of the world believing in Christianity or at least in the NT and Jesus but in different ways (eg Ev vs LDS)?
In principle, I think I agree with this. It largely has to do with conflicting epistemologies.
But I disagree that the only real proof of Christianity is in a private emotional epiphany (my usual description of the Mormon “testimony”). God has revealed the truth of himself and his salvation in a number of different, corroborating, powerful ways. For more on this I would point people to the way Jesus talks in John 5 to the Pharisees after angering them over his Sabbath-healing. I wrote some personal thoughts on this chapter here awhile back.
As for why historians, scientists, archaeologists, etc., don’t embrace the larger package of corroborating testimony that point to Christ, I would appeal to the beginning of Ephesians 2 which describes the natural inclinations and allegiances and heart-conditions of man. It has far more to do with human depravity than with lack of sufficient clarity.
I read all the replys since I posted, I want to add a few thoughts.
Aaron, I really am glad you agree to under moderate than over moderate.
Something I have said on other blogs and websites, and maybe even here before is this, Since we are “Writing” and not speaking via Audio unless we choose that option, We cannot Hear Tone of voice or see facial expressions, So some thoughts that we write might appear as snide or mean or rude, but in reality they are not. So we need to be careful their.
The other thing is this, Sorry about being Vauge to a point, But I wrote Sharon, I told her a mormon we both know Lied to me, I told her the story of How he lied, she was able to look into it, and To a degree she feels he did not do all he said he did.
I say this because, Sadly I believe many Mormons Lie to us, and yes we Christians Lie to Them as well. But my point is, I was lied to, the problem is, it is a matter of, it is my word against his, So it is hard to prove, and I told Sharon, I believe many Believers have been lied to and face the same position of, it’s my word against his.
I say this because, I know when LDS are lying, but since I cannot prove it with 100 percent fact, I keep quite, but I tend to get more heavy handed with them.
So this leads me to this thought, The Bible is clear, their are false Teachers, Prophets and Wolves in Sheeps Clothing, Not every LDS member fits in this group, many LDS are simply sincerly decived, yet decived non the less.
So How can you tell who is Decived and who is the Wolf or false teacher/prophet?
Also even the sincerly decived are still lost and going to hell, I have my own Ideas as to who is simple lost and who is a wolf, I am different with the LDS who are new to the blog and are asking honest questions, I handle the LDS who have been here and have heard the truth over and over in a different way.
I know people keep quoting to me, that we need to season our speech with grace, but yet the Bible also tells us, not to cast our Pearls before Swine and if we speak two to three times and they reject our message to simply move on.
So here is my View, I do my best to give as many quotes as possible from LDS sources so they cannot say I am twisting the quotes, but then I also speak with love and respect, on the other hand if the reject my speech I dont simply stop speaking as the Bible says because, Even thought the LDS reject the truth, I know their are “lurkers” reading every thing we write, so in the bigger view I am speaking to them, by answering the LDS with truth. Just thought I would share these thoughts. Rick b
Here, I’ll try and answer both germit and magan at the same time.
OK, here’s the deal. This is a particular forum, a setting. I’m not writing here in an attempt to get the approval of the specific type of Mormon who shows up here and/or for them to think I’m nice. Believe it or not, I have spent my adult life studying human relations. My paperback copy of “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnege is highligted, dogeared and full of micro notations. I even took the class thirty years ago and have closely followed and applied the principles in that and other human relations books. I have spent countless hours listening to human relations audio tapes. Then “Why?” you might ask, do I write the way I do? Why would I use a term like “big daddy warlocks” to describe the male Mormon high priests that show-up here? It’s for shock value for the lurkers. I want them to think, “What’s this fool talking about?” Maybe one of the lurkers will notice the occult symbols on some of the temples remember my comment and go “hmmmmm, what’s that doing there?” and began to do some independent research. I want to provoke them to think. I’m not interested in lulling them to sleep with my deft and slick PR presentation, which I could do. A strong angry emotional reaction to something I write will stick in their minds. I believe that most Mormons who get out of the maze do so on their own initiative led by the Holy Spirit. Something they see, hear or read gets them thinking. I have a friend who has a lot of contact with Mormons and exMos. He told me that he asked a lady who’s gotten out in the last couple of years what precipitated her exit. She said she was sitting in a Mormon church service and a verse out of the Psalms was read that said something about God making provision for us. She thought to herself, “…..then why am I storing all this food?” That was it. It led her into asking questions that finally got to the gest of the matter and she left, along with her husband.
So where in the world did I come-up with the “warlocks” term. Well first of all we have the fact that Joseph Smith was heavy duty into the occult, second sight vision, scrying with magic rocks and conjuring up spirits, either in actuality or in his imagination. We have the freemasonry connection with the occult rituals which our Mormons friends see as holy and sacred but are a bunch of magical hocus pocus. We have the undergarments with the occult symbol, we have the pointy hats and ritual costumes and then the priesthood that never did exist anywhere in the first century Christian church but Joseph Smith was granted license to by some spirits he said closely resembled a couple of the apostles. So I thought “warlocks” was a good shock value term because that’s what WICCA uses, I believe, and Mormonism is basically in that camp with the use of Christian terminology for cover. So we have these Mormon folks off in the temple doing their deal and hoping maybe, just maybe, they’ll get to see a spirit through the veil and thinking it’s spiritual.
Brothers and sisters, this is not bean bag, drop the hanky or duck duck goose we’re playing here. This is high powered spiritual warfare we are into on this site whether we want to acknowledge it or not. Just imagine Satan with his long clawed finger right down in the brains of the Mormon folks who show-up here. It’s going to take a jolt to wake them up.
Hey Falcon,
Just to clear things up – I am not an High Priest, I am an Elder. What you did was made a presumption and came out wrong with it.
Also, isn’t name calling (ie big daddy warlock, etc) a personal attack, not an attack on the institution regardless of how you came to the description?
First of all Raply I didn’t name anyone in particular about being a high priest. Secondly, if I don’t mention anyone’s name, it’s not a personal attack. Right?
Now Ralph, just for the benefit of the lurkers, you were the one that told me you’d steal or murder if directly ordered by the prophet in the big office building in Salt Lake City. I really don’t have anything against you personally, however I take that sort of thing seriously. That’s why, when my Christian friends get concerned about my or Rick’s rough house approach, they need to be reminded of what we’re dealing with here on Mormon Coffee. Again, we aren’t dealing with sweet little Mary Sue Mormon down the block who thinks if her husband gets his butt in gear, she’s going to get to play dress-up and be a goddess out in the Celestial Kingdom. She doesn’t have a clue as to the occult nature of the founding and practices of Mormonism. I don’t get into personal attacks here, but I won’t give any quarter when it comes to the occult nature of Mormonism and the deception that’s being promulgated on an unsuspecting public. not to mention Mormons themselves. My warning to my brothers and sisters in Christ is to be mindful of what kind of a spirit we’re dealing with here. You’re into it and that’s your choice. Having heard the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ you’ve chosen to ignore it, reject it and fight tooth and nail for the enemy of the Cross. That’s why I’m not really much of a smoocher here on this site.
Please finish up the conversation here, as we are closing this thread down Thursday evening.
Hey Falcon,
You broke your ‘rule’ and answered me personally – I feel privelaged.
The reason I pulled you up about me being an Elder is because you made a general statement about – “Why would I use a term like “big daddy warlocks” to describe the male Mormon high priests that show-up here?”. I do realise you did not mention any names but I just wanted to clarify that you cannot make sweeping general descriptions as you did then.
About the big daddy warlock remark – I couldn’t care less if you were directly naming me or not, I have been called worse. In fact in my post just after you made that remark I told you I was laughing at the comment. You see, here in Australia we use sarcasm and such as jokes and terms of endearment. One of the big ones is calling your best friend a bastard – its a really big term of endearment. My point in my last mail was that whether you are naming a person or not, you are remarking about the type of person you see someone in the LDS church as being (or those who answer your questions on this site)- that is getting personal, it is not attacking the institution itself. It’s called stereotyping. You made a comment that you did not reply to people because you did not want to attack people, just the institute – so comments where you call a stereotype name is going against that rule you have made for yourself.
Yes I have said that if the prophet tells me that God wants me to do something, then I will do it regardless of what it is. We see the same with the people of Israel and their prophets – they were blessed when they followed the prophet – even when he told them to kill every man, woman and child (including suckling babies) – if they didn’t do these things we see that blessings were removed. So I am following a Biblical mandate – even if you do not believe in the living prophet today it does not make it any less Biblical.
As far as me being an enemy to the cross – I think it is far better for me to be an enemy of the cross than an enemy of Jesus Christ whom I serve.