Mormon Doctrine alive and well

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

It seems to me the board has become more and more acrimonious about religion over time. Indeed, I have enjoyed the religious discussions less and less and have contributed less as a result. Whether or not his is a net gain to the board is perhaps debatable, but either way I know that I am enjoying it less.

I agree with Triple D that the church is too often portrayed with negativity here, and it seems to me the frequency is increasing, so that the discussions just aren’t as interesting to me, let alone edifying. This thread is sort of an example of what I am talking about. What possible benefit comes from this sort of discussion? Whether Tex or SEIQ or Indy or Lebowski or whoever are apostates or mullahs (whatever those terms may mean among a bunch of semi-anonymous internet geeks who may or may not be posing as something they otherwise aren’t in real life) or something else altogether is really pointless. When an apostle’s name becomes shorthand among a group for error and intellectual failure then I think the group may have gone too far, to the extent it professes or seeks to be friendly to the church.

To tell you the truth, I think this is the sort of thing the prophets warn us against when they criticize the learned or intellectualism. We are all trying to find our way to God. It is a difficult path, fraught with doubt and trial and certainly error but also with repentance and redemption and faith and grace. I am not sure that so much negativity under any circumstance benefits any of us on this journey. You can call me a mullah, or an apostate, or anything else, but know that this is my opinion as I wend my own way and try to stay on path

Based on the replies of others you said something really enlightening here, but that font literally makes my eyes hurt. I tried to finish the first sentence at least a half dozen times until I got a headache. Then I needed to go lay down on the couch in my office and before you know it, my gentle snores had prompted my boss to wander in and ask if I was okay. Just enlighten us in the normal way in the future, eh?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Based on the replies of others you said something really enlightening here, but that font literally makes my eyes hurt. I tried to finish the first sentence at least a half dozen times until I got a headache. Then I needed to go lay down on the couch in my office and before you know it, my gentle snores had prompted my boss to wander in and ask if I was okay. Just enlighten us in the normal way in the future, eh?

He had a legal assistant transcribe it. You notice there are no typos.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am honored. Please make sure they know that it is a gibbon, which is an ape, not a monkey.

Will do.

Are gibbons averse to being put in the toilet bowl? If so, little creekster may have a short shelf life. I will do my best to make it as comfortable as possible.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Based on the replies of others you said something really enlightening here, but that font literally makes my eyes hurt. I tried to finish the first sentence at least a half dozen times until I got a headache. Then I needed to go lay down on the couch in my office and before you know it, my gentle snores had prompted my boss to wander in and ask if I was okay. Just enlighten us in the normal way in the future, eh?

It wasn't very enlightening, so don't worry about mssing it. I typed it on my desktop and spell checked it (for a change) and then when I pasted it in to this board it showed up in this strange font. I tried to correct it but I think I made it worse. At least you got a nap out of it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by YOhio

He had a legal assistant transcribe it. You notice there are no typos.

Man, if I get to the point where I am dictating posts I will know I need to hang it up.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

It seems to me the board has become more and more acrimonious about religion over time. Indeed, I have enjoyed the religious discussions less and less and have contributed less as a result. Whether or not his is a net gain to the board is perhaps debatable, but either way I know that I am enjoying it less.

I agree with Triple D that the church is too often portrayed with negativity here, and it seems to me the frequency is increasing, so that the discussions just aren’t as interesting to me, let alone edifying. This thread is sort of an example of what I am talking about. What possible benefit comes from this sort of discussion? Whether Tex or SEIQ or Indy or Lebowski or whoever are apostates or mullahs (whatever those terms may mean among a bunch of semi-anonymous internet geeks who may or may not be posing as something they otherwise aren’t in real life) or something else altogether is really pointless. When an apostle’s name becomes shorthand among a group for error and intellectual failure then I think the group may have gone too far, to the extent it professes or seeks to be friendly to the church.

To tell you the truth, I think this is the sort of thing the prophets warn us against when they criticize the learned or intellectualism. We are all trying to find our way to God. It is a difficult path, fraught with doubt and trial and certainly error but also with repentance and redemption and faith and grace. I am not sure that so much negativity under any circumstance benefits any of us on this journey. You can call me a mullah, or an apostate, or anything else, but know that this is my opinion as I wend my own way and try to stay on path

Excellent thoughts, Creekster. As usual.

As for this thread, keep in mind that it was started by Tex taunting the CG crowd. Tough to expect it to stay on the up-and-up after that.

But in general, what is the right balance? I am not talking about this thread, but the religion forum on CG in general. Frankly, I am quite surprised with DDD's analysis. He seems to imply that any level of criticism is out of line, thoughtful or otherwise. I think one can make a strong argument that sifting through and discussing the thornier aspects of church doctrine and history is healthy. And anyone who would question SEIQ's sincerity or devotion to the church is simply being unfair, or is just ignorant of the overall body of his posts here, IMO. And to nitpick about his moniker or the scripture in his sig line is just absurd.

I will admit that I often get out of line. And I will do my best to avoid riling up Tex and Indy, but let's not swing too far the other way.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Excellent thoughts, Creekster. As usual.

As for this thread, keep in mind that it was started by Tex taunting the CG crowd. Tough to expect it to stay on the up-and-up after that.

But in general, what is the right balance? I am not talking about this thread, but the religion forum on CG in general. Frankly, I am quite surprised with DDD's analysis. He seems to imply that any level of criticism is out of line, thoughtful or otherwise. I think one can make a strong argument that sifting through and discussing the thornier aspects of church doctrine and history is healthy. And anyone who would question SEIQ's sincerity or devotion to the church is simply being unfair, or is just ignorant of the overall body of his posts here, IMO. And to nitpick about his moniker or the scripture in his sig line is just absurd.

I will admit that I often get out of line. And I will do my best to avoid riling up Tex and Indy, but let's not swing too far the other way.

JL, a few thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts on everyone's thoughts...

I actually do think that criticizing Church leaders is not a healthy practice. I have only 2 reasons for this: first, my gut tells me so. Two, I know we are asked to refrain from evil speaking of the Lord's annointed (although I am not exactly positive how to interpret that). For my tastes, I choose not to post about something dumb a local Bishop may have said, or something annoying that a RS President said.

As for the thornier bits of our past, I dont really see anything wrong with this either. MMM happened, why pretend like it didnt? Blacks didnt always hold the priesthood. Seeking clarification on Church doctrine and investigating is one thing....but criticizing Church leaders who make no claims to perfection, esp under the guise of intellectual curiosity, seems to sway too far to the other side.

Finally, with regards to Shaking Hands, I never questioned his sincerity or faithfulness to the Church. I simply observed that, based on his tone in many of the posts I have read, I was surprised that he classified himself as faithful, active, etc.. I dont see that as being unfair. It was just an impression.

I also was not nitpicking about his scripture. He seemed to be offended at being called an apostate. I pointed out that his name, his wife's name, and his sig line all make it reasonable to interpret that this is a person who isnt going to fall in line with the other dogmatics that he seems to revile a bit....so why be surprised when the same dogmatics call him out for not fitting in, ie, being apostate? If you dont want people to form immediate impressions of your stance toward the Church, then dont begin by identifying yourself as someone who sleeps through church.

That being said, I dont really care if he sleeps through EQ or if his wife is sassy in RS. That is his business, not mine. But if you post a lot and put your opions out there, and claim to be sassy in church or whatever, dont get upset when people disagree, call you a name, or form an opinion about you.

The more important point...the one creekster made, which was the same one I was making, is that this board DOES come across as negative and hostile towards the Church. It goes beyond academic and into the realm of personal. You seem to not refute this too much, but, rather, be concerned with how much you can criticize the Church and its leaders without seeming hostile. I dont have that answer. It isnt my biz if you want to criticize the Church or its leaders. I was only noting that it takes place on this board. I wasnt calling for it to stop.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

As for this thread, keep in mind that it was started by Tex taunting the CG crowd.
...
I will admit that I often get out of line. And I will do my best to avoid riling up Tex and Indy, but let's not swing too far the other way.

Guilty as charged. Although I'm not a big fan of name-calling, I do my share of provocative posting. Been trying to quit, but when our instructor innocently whipped out MD ... well, I just couldn't resist.

What has truthfully amazed me is the height of SIEQ's indignation. There is a double-standard on this board that would make even Rosa Parks turn her head.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

As for the thornier bits of our past, I dont really see anything wrong with this either. MMM happened, why pretend like it didnt? Blacks didnt always hold the priesthood. Seeking clarification on Church doctrine and investigating is one thing....but criticizing Church leaders who make no claims to perfection, esp under the guise of intellectual curiosity, seems to sway too far to the other side.

You can't possibly do an honest analysis of MMM or Blacks in the Priesthood without a discussion of errors and faults by church leaders. You can't have it both ways. Most of us here who find value in these discussions and claim to be faithful will argue that an acknowledgment of leadership errors is healthy and honest. In the end I suppose it all boils down to tone and intent, which is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I also was not nitpicking about his scripture. He seemed to be offended at being called an apostate. I pointed out that his name, his wife's name, and his sig line all make it reasonable to interpret that this is a person who isnt going to fall in line with the other dogmatics that he seems to revile a bit....so why be surprised when the same dogmatics call him out for not fitting in, ie, being apostate? If you dont want people to form immediate impressions of your stance toward the Church, then dont begin by identifying yourself as someone who sleeps through church.

That being said, I dont really care if he sleeps through EQ or if his wife is sassy in RS. That is his business, not mine. But if you post a lot and put your opions out there, and claim to be sassy in church or whatever, dont get upset when people disagree, call you a name, or form an opinion about you.

"not fitting in" = "apostate"? Good heavens, that is insane.

As for sleeping through church, who doesn't? My bishop sleeps sometimes. You are taking that far too seriously.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The more important point...the one creekster made, which was the same one I was making, is that this board DOES come across as negative and hostile towards the Church. It goes beyond academic and into the realm of personal. You seem to not refute this too much, but, rather, be concerned with how much you can criticize the Church and its leaders without seeming hostile. I dont have that answer. It isnt my biz if you want to criticize the Church or its leaders. I was only noting that it takes place on this board. I wasnt calling for it to stop.

And I think you (and Creekster to a lesser degree) are overstating the personal nature of such criticism.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Guilty as charged. Although I'm not a big fan of name-calling, I do my share of provocative posting. Been trying to quit, but when our instructor innocently whipped out MD ... well, I just couldn't resist.

What has truthfully amazed me is the height of SIEQ's indignation. There is a double-standard on this board that would make even Rosa Parks turn her head.

I agree that SEIQ took your posts way too seriously.