LDS Freedom Forum

combing through the Mormon bloggosphere for pots to stir (that's for you OI ) I can across this thread by our friend MercyNGrace http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... ge__st__20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; where one of the respondents claimed this new site had an anti-Mormon bias

Have any of you checked it out ? http://mormonchronicle.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It blew my mind to see such an accusation. The site is nothing but testimony of the Restored Gospel.

B-)

LOL

Blew me away, too.

I thought the blog post would be an opportunity for those interested in apologetics (myself included to some degree) to see how others see them (you might remember I asked you about this topic via PM). I've been fascinated by the reactions of different groups of church members toward each other online. Here NOMs and apologists are considered apostates and board regulars are "TBMs". There, NOMs are apostates, literalists are somewhat simple minded, and board regulars are "TBMs". Every board has their standard bearers and if you disagree with them in any way, you'll be called an apostate (or enemy of Christ). LOL. It's intra-faith cannibalism and I see it on every LDS forum on which I post with a single exception.

So in short, everyone thinks they are right and everyone thinks all others are lost.

What are we to make of this? Certainly not Zion as everyone's picture of Zion excludes fellow saints and often gleefully so. Which is why I added the last question about the internet. Is it divisive for the LDS community or just giving voice to divisions and disputations that already exist among us in spades?

PS let it be noted that I defended Brian repeatedly on that thread. As I said on the MDD board, we may disagree on some issues but that doesn't mean either of us has a corner on "true, believing, mormonism".

Yes you did Mercy

The supposed division makes you wonder about this scripture in

Ephesians chapter 4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ

Seems pretty clear that when emotions get involved and people ignore the words of the Prophets, it leads to confusion and disunity.

Oh man this is hilarious! http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... with-this/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brian and Ezra talking about how the Book of Mormon was translated is considered apostate =)) =)) =))

I know insecure testimony people often throw out the charge of apsotate all too frequently.

What criteria should be used to decide if a statement is an apostate one?
Should one "apostate" statement make that a peeson a real apostate?
Do true apostates show word/behavioral patterns? If so, what are they?

Mahonri wrote:Brian and Ezra talking about how the Book of Mormon was translated is considered apostate =)) =)) =))

I presume the "apologists" at that forum would disapprove of the Zone Conference presentation I gave to all the missionaries in my mission.

I presume Elder Nelson was also in apostasy when he quoted David Whitmer's account of how the BoM was translated, inferring its precious insights.

No one up to stating specifically what the answers are to IMO profound and important questions about apostacy?

JulesGP wrote: M&G, Your posts do not sound like you "defended Brian repeatedly", but attempted to sit on the fence, or keep one good foot in each forum. After reading the entire thread, it sounds like you are saying that you agree with these people's argument that the articles on Mormon Chronicle are NOT in harmony with the Gospel, and that you feel that although they believe in the Gospel, they are actually promoting false doctrine. Is that true?? Do you feel that Brian and Ezra Taylor are promoting doctrine that is "anti-Mormon"?

Here are three separate quotes from that thread where I defended Brian as being a true, believing LDS.

Questionable in what way?

I don't know Ezra (at least by that name) but I do know a bit about Brian as I've read his other websites and have posted on the forum he hosts for about 3 years.

He is a church and temple attending LDS.

While I don't agree with Brian on numerous isues, I've dealt with him online enough to believe him when he says he is a true, believing LDS.

I'm not defending Brian's views but it would be dishonest and dishonorable of me not to speak up for him since I have no doubt he is sincere and honest in his beliefs as an active, believing, LDS.

You selected this exchange in which I specifically say that I disagree with the "anti-church" and "anti-mormon" labels. It may be clumsily worded but that was my intent and that is what it says. So, no, I absolutely do not believe the Mormon Chronicle or any of Brian's other sites are anti-Mormon or any such thing. That's just nonsense.

My opinion is that extreme focus on gospel hobbies distorts an understanding of the gospel generally. This is what I see happening but I wouldn't go so far as to say the blog authors are anti-church or anti-mormon so much as prone to view everything through the lens of their particular hobby - a strength becoming a downfall.

The irony here is that we have groups within the church pointing fingers at each other and shouting "apostate". They think apologists are anti-mormon. In this thread, apologists suggest that they are anti-mormon. Just goes to show how painfully far we are from becoming one heart and one mind.

Jules, one of the main points of the thread which you see addressed in the OP, is the question of congregating like minds on the internet creating division. The sentence I underlined, for ease of reference, in the above quote was specifically a reference to that tendency, not just on the Mormon Chronicle blog but on most LDS sites I've encountered. The follow up paragraph further develops the point. The "strength becoming a downfall" phrase was a reference to an Oct 1994 Ensign article by elder Dallin H. Oaks which addresses the point of focusing too singularly on any particular point of doctrine, something exacerbated by the thematic approach many LDS forums and websites take. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, I'm wondering aloud whether it might be a bad thing. There are previous threads in which I've discussed similar issues that would be known to some posters of the other board which would give context.

If it comes off as wishy-washy or straddling the line between forums, then perhaps we should be asking why two forums populated with active, temple attending LDS have such stark lines drawn in the first place? My sole purpose in bringing the blog to the attention of that forum was to highlight what I see as a growing divisiveness that is counterproductive to Christ's purposes.

As for the crack about Ezra's editor, I apologize. I was trying to be funny. FWIW, I use the edit key more than anyone else I know - something I've joked about numerous times on that board which regular posters there might remember.

Mahonri wrote:Oh man this is hilarious! http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... with-this/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brian and Ezra talking about how the Book of Mormon was translated is considered apostate =)) =)) =))

I couldn't even bring myself to post on that thread. Zerinus and I have a history of never agreeing and this thread was certainly not going to change it.

FWIW, Zerinus is NOT typical of the LDS apologists on that board.

MercynGrace wrote:

Mahonri wrote:Oh man this is hilarious! http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... with-this/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brian and Ezra talking about how the Book of Mormon was translated is considered apostate =)) =)) =))

I couldn't even bring myself to post on that thread. Zerinus and I have a history of never agreeing and this thread was certainly not going to change it.

FWIW, Zerinus is NOT typical of the LDS apologists on that board.

maybe not, but there were a few others agreeing with him. To not be anti Mormon one has to deny the facts and say the paintings are accurate when they aren't?

pure insanity. They were saying it was fine and even good that Joseph translated the plates in that way. They were not casting aspersions, but were defending the Gospel in a truthful way.

It is too bad some can't be unified with the Prophet Joseph but have to fight against him and his mission. To call that conversation anti-mormon is truly Orwellian double speak.

Food for thought. Wne one tells so many mistruths, its hard to keep up with them so that's often why there are so many contradictions and hard to pin down