Private discussion area

[Mahonri]

and their bearing false witness of FULL Conservatives such as I, Rush, Glenn, Malkin, Hannity, etc.

what is a "FULL" conservative?

[armedtotheteeth]

Actually I'm simply exercising my property rights, and right to association and discrimination. I'm also using my freedom to pursue happiness, and to promote liberty... and not violating anyone's rights in the process. If anything, where this forum lacks in upholding Liberty, as defined by the Lord, is in it being too lenient. Liberty is not license... True Liberty only comes through righteousness. If anyone wants to deny me those rights they are the communist.

Nuff said! pretty much sums it up! ithink, your complaints sound communistic, its funny you throw that title around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY

HAHA

"oh king hey, very nice."

It never gets old.

[Hyrcanus]

and their bearing false witness of FULL Conservatives such as I, Rush, Glenn, Malkin, Hannity, etc.

what is a "FULL" conservative?

It's is the approximate rhetorical corollary of a "Full" Member of the Church. That is defined as someone who believes exactly what I believe at the moment I invoke it. That way when I disagree with someone over some point, instead of actually responding to their positions with facts and solid arguments, I can simply disparage them as being something less then a "Full" [insert group here]. It's great!

[Mahonri]

and their bearing false witness of FULL Conservatives such as I, Rush, Glenn, Malkin, Hannity, etc.

what is a "FULL" conservative?

It's is the approximate rhetorical corollary of a "Full" Member of the Church. That is defined as someone who believes exactly what I believe at the moment I invoke it. That way when I disagree with someone over some point, instead of actually responding to their positions with facts and solid arguments, I can simply disparage them as being something less then a "Full" [insert group here]. It's great!

that is hilarious

[MercynGrace]

I guess I have departed from looking at things from a liberal-conservative viewpoint. I tend to no longer divide things into these categories. I lean more towards a God-Satan division. It clarifies things and makes it easier to distinguish which path to choose.
I find that both conservative and liberal so called views have both a God and Satan philosophy in them. So it just makes more sense to me to keep with the God and Satan view division.
It sure eliminates a lot of heated discussion about who is conservative and who is liberal.
It is so much easier to determine what is evil and what is good because we have the standard works and our modern day prophets as guides.

Ask me if I am republican or democrat. I will tell you I am a child of God.

That's exactly how I feel, NGL. I have trouble even remembering how I used to understand the political matrix. It all looks like scrolling numbers to me now.

I've been unplugged. I'm living in a more authentic place. And I'm working my way to Zion.

[ithink]

I guess I have departed from looking at things from a liberal-conservative viewpoint. I tend to no longer divide things into these categories. I lean more towards a God-Satan division. It clarifies things and makes it easier to distinguish which path to choose.
I find that both conservative and liberal so called views have both a God and Satan philosophy in them. So it just makes more sense to me to keep with the God and Satan view division.
It sure eliminates a lot of heated discussion about who is conservative and who is liberal.
It is so much easier to determine what is evil and what is good because we have the standard works and our modern day prophets as guides.

Ask me if I am republican or democrat. I will tell you I am a child of God.

I think the same way you do. I am not actually a conservative, nor a democrat, nor a communist. I am an independent. I think independently, hence: ithink. That is what my name means. I don't buy into labels either. I don't like being called Mormon, smart, stupid, or even good, but you can call me independent.

[ithink]

I'm just curious how I got access to the private forum

I gave you access to the forum because you had been participating in one of the discussions that was moved into the private area. At this point almost anyone can get access to it. But only logged in users know it exists. Guests who are reading the forum and have not registered and logged in won't even know the private area is there.

Only guests don't see it? See. That is another reason why there should be a private discussion forum. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, personally.

And search engines don't see it either. Now here is a clue.

[ithink]

I like to say that today's conservative is yesterday's communist. In other words, there has been a slide in the general thinking and principles of that conservative mindset. That being said, I've noticed that on this forum that topics which were mainstream items 25 years ago, like birth control, are now relegated to the private discussion area of this forum. I totally disagree with this, and I call it a form of censorship. I agree that Brian owns the forum, but I don't agree with this private discussion area. In an age of the internet, with everything being shouted from the rooftops, it is a moot point anyway.

1. You have that wrong.... Today's LIBERAL/Democrat is yesterdays Communist. Today's Conservative is still the same as it's always been.

Saying today's conservative is yesterday's communist is making a point. Of course it is not literally true, but it draws your attention to the generals shift of the entire political spectrum, and sorry, but conservatives are included in that swing and of all the labeled political factions, among conservatives it is the greatest. Consider the statement "nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and more wild, wicked and ferocious than the Lamanites". Consider also: "darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people". Add to that Nibley's addage: "and among the people of Christendom, it is the darkest". What does Nibley understand? He understands what you ironically, cannot see at all: that a people or a group, once enlightened and who turn from that light, end up in a darkness far darker than if they had never see any of the light. This is one of the messages of the Book of Mormon, but it applies aptly to this situation. Conservatives, once the brightest light of the political spectrum, now risk becoming the dark blight in modern history.

[ithink]

and their bearing false witness of FULL Conservatives such as I, Rush, Glenn, Malkin, Hannity, etc.

what is a "FULL" conservative?

An independent. Like Joseph Smith, or his predecessor: Jesus Christ.

[ithink]

I like to say that today's conservative is yesterday's communist. In other words, there has been a slide in the general thinking and principles of that conservative mindset. That being said, I've noticed that on this forum that topics which were mainstream items 25 years ago, like birth control, are now relegated to the private discussion area of this forum. I totally disagree with this, and I call it a form of censorship. I agree that Brian owns the forum, but I don't agree with this private discussion area. In an age of the internet, with everything being shouted from the rooftops, it is a moot point anyway.

A couple of things I don't understand:

First, you have posted over 1000x on this forum, so why are you just now deciding to complain about this?

And second, why didn't you just write a private message to Brian and talk to him about your complaint, rather than posting publicly and calling names such as "communist" and accusing him of censorship - and stirring up contention with other members?

This seems like "fault finding" to me, and there is no crime here other than that of the accuser.

I think Brian has read enough of my comments over the years to not get his knickers in a knot over this thread. Besides, what is wrong with fishing? So far there are no strikes to my way of thinking, but then again -- what's new?

[buffalo_girl]

iThink, I'm not quite sure why you object to the 'Private Discussion' area. Since not 'a member' of the private club, I have no idea what topics are discussed, and frankly, don't care.

My post a few back was simply my way of saying that sometimes the 'private club' mentality helps people feel important by the very nature of its being 'exclusive'. If that's what the doctor ordered, so be it!

My quote from Alma above was an example of the furthest extreme of exclusivity.

buffalo_girl repeats herself:

There's nothing quite so fine as being able to confirm one's opinion by those selected few who share it.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case regarding the 'Private Discussion' area.

[shadow]

There is nothing on the private forum that is exclusive, mostly just a waste of time.

Brian or moderator, buffalogirl apparently does not have access to the private forum, can you fix that for her?? She must be one of the few that doesn't have access to it.

Also BG, please remember that the previous private forum was NEVER used. This new one is used only because Brian or the moderator moved active threads to it
No one has said that access to the private forum makes them feel "exclusive" or "better" than anyone else, but it is Brians site and he can do with it what he pleases.

[ithink]

iThink, I'm not quite sure why you object to the 'Private Discussion' area.

I'm sorry to say but if you haven't derived what underlies my by objection to the private area, I do not believe no further amount of explanation will.

But I'll try one more time.

If the people want the most righteous forum, then go to the one at http://forum.lds.org

[buffalo_girl]

Honestly, Shadow, I think you worry too much.

[shadow]

Honestly, Shadow, I think you worry too much.

When you post Alma 31 then twist it to imply that those who somehow have access to the private forum are in the same boat then don't be surprised when you're called on it. Relating Alma 31 to the private discussion is CRAZY!

[MercynGrace]

Mind you, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case regarding the 'Private Discussion' area.

BG,

I'd say there is no private club mentality in this case. I didn't ask for permission to see the private discussion forum but one day it suddenly appeared on my screen. From Brian's explanation, I must've posted in a thread that got moved over. (Of course, eventually I would've asked because I read everything I can get my hands on )

MnG

[LukeAir2008]

I agree that it is sad that certain things are now considered taboo in the mainstream of the Church, but I much prefer a separate area to discuss these things than banning them completely.

.

Is there a list of taboo things "in the mainstream of the Church"?

Also, how does one define "the mainstream of the Church"? For example, if one has a year's supply of food, is this considered "mainstream" when less than 20% have a year's storage? How about debt -- is NOT having debt mainstream?
How about the wife NOT working?-- mainstream, or not?

--puzzled but not totally muzzled yet

I don't think there is an official list - certainly not a public one anyway. But I do think that if you were to openly discuss in church the practice of plural marriage in the early church including polyandry, the teachings on blood atonement, the statements by Prophets on Michael/Adam/God etc. - you could well be facing disciplinary action. Just before his death, Cleon Skousen spoke about the church having a list of forbidden books and publications, some of which the church had gone to the trouble of buying up all the copies and then destroying them.

The Journal of Discourses and the Journal of Wilford Woodruff could well fall into this category. You won't find those publications in Deseret Book today - and yet they were there in the 80's.

I wasn't a member of the church in the seventies - but I have it in good faith that the Stake High Council would meet in their temple robes and pray in the true and correct manner.

Are all these teachings and practices now false? Or is it a case of the church membership being too apostate and wicked to have many of these sacred and holy things?

[ready2prepare]

Good grief: What's all the kerfuffle about?

Forums are just like people. They have their
private parts!

So accept what is, for what is, and move on!

Sheesh!

Best Regards,
Sharon in Mississippi

[ithink]

Just before his death, Cleon Skousen spoke about the church having a list of forbidden books and publications, some of which the church had gone to the trouble of buying up all the copies and then destroying them.

Are you insinuating someone had Cleon killed for divulging this information? And who bought up these books? Got any official references? And destroying them? Is that not just another way of saying "they were moved to the Private Discussion area of the forum"!

[ithink]

Just before his death, Cleon Skousen spoke about the church having a list of forbidden books and publications, some of which the church had gone to the trouble of buying up all the copies and then destroying them.

Are you insinuating someone had Cleon killed for divulging this information? And who bought up these books? Got any official references? And destroying them? Is that not just another way of saying "they were moved to the Private Discussion area of the forum"!

Where did you get the implication that someone had Cleon killed for divulging information?? I didn't derive that out of anything that has been said.......

Apparently it was a futile attempt to inject some humor into this otherwise benign discussion.

[MercynGrace]

The Journal of Discourses and the Journal of Wilford Woodruff could well fall into this category. You won't find those publications in Deseret Book today - and yet they were there in the 80's.

You can read the entire JOD online for free at byu.edu

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/brows ... iscourses3

[Mahonri]

The Journal of Discourses and the Journal of Wilford Woodruff could well fall into this category. You won't find those publications in Deseret Book today - and yet they were there in the 80's.

You can read the entire JOD online for free at byu.edu

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/brows ... iscourses3

And it is available at Deseret Book. Just saw it today.

Benchmark is a much better LDS book store though.

[Hyrcanus]

I agree that it is sad that certain things are now considered taboo in the mainstream of the Church, but I much prefer a separate area to discuss these things than banning them completely.

.

Is there a list of taboo things "in the mainstream of the Church"?

Also, how does one define "the mainstream of the Church"? For example, if one has a year's supply of food, is this considered "mainstream" when less than 20% have a year's storage? How about debt -- is NOT having debt mainstream?
How about the wife NOT working?-- mainstream, or not?

--puzzled but not totally muzzled yet

I don't think there is an official list - certainly not a public one anyway. But I do think that if you were to openly discuss in church the practice of plural marriage in the early church including polyandry, the teachings on blood atonement, the statements by Prophets on Michael/Adam/God etc. - you could well be facing disciplinary action. Just before his death, Cleon Skousen spoke about the church having a list of forbidden books and publications, some of which the church had gone to the trouble of buying up all the copies and then destroying them.

The Journal of Discourses and the Journal of Wilford Woodruff could well fall into this category. You won't find those publications in Deseret Book today - and yet they were there in the 80's.

I wasn't a member of the church in the seventies - but I have it in good faith that the Stake High Council would meet in their temple robes and pray in the true and correct manner.

Are all these teachings and practices now false? Or is it a case of the church membership being too apostate and wicked to have many of these sacred and holy things?

The JoD and the Journal of Wilford Woodruff aren't carried by Deseret Book because not there isn't that large a market for a $400-$800 collection that sits on most peoples shelves. I don't think it has anything to do with wanting to keep the information restricted, the JoD has been available in Gospel Link since the beginning and in the last few years has been put online in its entirety. How many copies of Royal Skousens Critical Text do you see at Deseret Book, probably an occasional one, but it won't show up often because it just isn't something most members will buy.

As a small aside, when I worked for Deseret Book just after my mission (this was about 10 years ago) JoD was available for special order from DB's warehouse (along with lots of other obscure stuff that wasn't regularly stocked). It may still be.

Members of High Councils, Bishoprics, Branch Presidencies and other leadership groups are still encouraged to participate in prayer circles, they're just asked to do it at the temple. They formally discontinued prayer circles outside the temple in the late 70's. It wasn't any sort of secret, it was a letter directly from the first presidency. Each circle had to be organized formally by a request to the First Presidency and as the Church continued to grow along with the number of temples, the administrative task apparently got to be pretty significant at the same time as it became more reasonable for members to be within close proximity of a temple. I don't know the specifics of why they made the decisions other then that, but assuming it is because members of the church are too apostate or wicked seems like a stretch absent any direct indication of that.

[ithink]

There is nothing on the private forum that is exclusive, mostly just a waste of time.

Well then on those grounds, I recommend the entire site be moved into the private forum area.

[creator]

I am not actually a conservative, nor a democrat, nor a communist. I am an independent. I think independently, hence: ithink. That is what my name means. I don't buy into labels either. I don't like being called Mormon, smart, stupid, or even good, but you can call me independent.

In case there was any question...

I am not a conservative, not a Republican or Democrat, not a libertarian or a communist, etc, etc...

I seek for truth and to line all of my beliefs up with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.