Invasion of the Trollls

[EmmaLee]

Another rule I see violated (in this thread even) by those who claim to be unfairly victimized:

If you disagree with the actions of a Moderator or the Forum Administrator you may address your concerns privately by contacting the Forum Administrator - making such concerns public may result in warning or banishment.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're passively-aggressively referring to me (and sorry, if you're not referring to me), then you have accused me falsely, as I have had MANY private conversations with Brian about every single thing I've said publicly on this thread and I have the PM's to prove it. I've also had many private conversations with previous moderators. Nothing changes. It's like those who want to change the Church - they complain and piss and moan about it, full well knowing nothing will change. I (and others) do the same with this forum. #-o

It's interesting that those who like working in the dark (the "private" HG forum, the "private" Snuffer FB groups, "addressing your concerns "privately", etc.), have such an intensely difficult time with what they perceive as the Church working in the dark on certain issues (finances, etc.). Pot/kettle. Yep, a lot of hypocrisy going around - something else we're ALL guilty of.

[EmmaLee]

It's an opinion because it implies intent which is not validated with evidence.

Have Brian show us a list of everyone who's been banned. Then read the posts of those people.

[deep water]

This should answer your question EL.
Sorry, not sure what question you're referring to, specifically.

Maybe what Brian should do is to create a strictly biscuit and don't want to bring evidence to support their gospel understanding safe place. That way we can explore all things true and all things false. That way all that are seeking truth will find it. Joseph Smith said that if you don't gain enough knowledge here in this life, you will be taken captive by some unseen being in the next. Why are so many so afraid to search out truth today? If you are standing upon a rock, nothing can move or hinder you. That includes snakes, poison, sickness, blindness, and deafness, and wolves in sheep's clothing and devils.
Not speaking for anyone else, but I'm not afraid of truth. I seek it daily (hourly, some days) - I read till my eyes are red and I have a headache. I pray till I literally can't think of anything else to say (I'm glad God is understanding). I read such a wide variety of topics and authors, you would probably be quite surprised if you looked through my bookcases. Some truths, once verified through prayer, have caused me to change some of my perceptions and beliefs. Other alleged truths are still pending, and may be "on the shelf" for a long time. Some truths have caused me to scratch my head; some have caused me to shout for joy. But no real, actual truth, from any source, has persuaded me to leave and revile the Church.

But anyway, like I said, I personally don't care what is discussed on LDSFF; discuss any version(s) of the gospel that you all want. My only concern is that the forum is accurately described by its owner, which it currently is not - and that is dishonest.

If you look into Brian's explanation of what the words mean to him, I believe you will find that he has kept true to his desires for the material discussed here. It is the view that others take his words to say that creates the problem. Many look at scripture the same way. Just like the church was first named the church of God, then the Church of Christ, ( from inception to under condemnation) then under condemnation the Church became the church of latter day saints, then man put Christs name back into the name and it has been the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. So just what is the lds church Gospel? Who founded the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints? Did not God say that if you are not one, then you are not mine? What value was the Law of Moses to those who lived under it? What did Christ mean when he said that this is MY Gospel, and if it is added to or taken away from, know that it is not of me.

[SmallFarm]

It's an opinion because it implies intent which is not validated with evidence.

Have Brian show us a list of everyone who's been banned. Then read the posts of those people.

The content of their posts means little, it is the offending posts where they broke the rules that is important.

[SmallFarm]

Another rule I see violated (in this thread even) by those who claim to be unfairly victimized:

If you disagree with the actions of a Moderator or the Forum Administrator you may address your concerns privately by contacting the Forum Administrator - making such concerns public may result in warning or banishment.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're passively-aggressively referring to me (and sorry, if you're not referring to me), then you have accused me falsely, as I have had MANY private conversations with Brian about every single thing I've said publicly on this thread and I have the PM's to prove it. I've also had many private conversations with previous moderators. Nothing changes. It's like those who want to change the Church - they complain and piss and moan about it, full well knowing nothing will change. I (and others) do the same with this forum. #-o

It's interesting that those who like working in the dark (the "private" HG forum, the "private" Snuffer FB groups, "addressing your concerns "privately", etc.), have such an intensely difficult time with what they perceive as the Church working in the dark on certain issues (finances, etc.). Pot/kettle. Yep, a lot of hypocrisy going around - something else we're ALL guilty of.

Your private conversations do not excuse you from publicly breaking the rules but nice try.

[SmallFarm]

How would you feel if someone came into your house and said "This is not an LDS home. This house does not serve the Lord."?

[rewcox]

Who founded the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints? Did not God say that if you are not one, then you are not mine?

Paul said, One faith, one baptism. Apostles and prophets are given to edify the body( or church). Christ said the church was the only true and living one on the earth.

Be a member, do your best. There is not another way.

[SmallFarm]

It's funny how people claim I was on a power trip when I was a mod and yet I never sent one formal warning or did anything other than tell people to self moderate.

[rewcox]

How would you feel if someone came into your house and said "This is not an LDS home. This house does not serve the Lord."?

When a new poster asks, "Is this an anti Mormon site?" Then you can understand how LDSFF is coming across.

When General Conference is going on, and many posts belittle the church the church, you can see how it is coming across.

There are ex members and inactives posting like they know the truth, which much is negative against the church, you can see how LDSFF is coming across.

When the rules say this is a pro LDS forum, you can see where EmmaLee sees a paradox.

[EmmaLee]

If you look into Brian's explanation of what the words mean to him, I believe you will find that he has kept true to his desires for the material discussed here. It is the view that others take his words to say that creates the problem.

This is the paragraph of Brian's rules that I'm referring to on this thread -

"What this forum is not. It is not an anti-Mormon/anti-LDS forum, not a Denver Snuffer forum, not a forum for any ‘remnant’ or LDS offshoot communities/movements/groups, and not a forum for being bitter and critical of LDS Church leaders."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me - not much wiggle room for what you think Brian's words mean to him (and yes, I'm quite aware he does not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ = the LDS Church, although I doubt most people on the forum today know that). So how do people who FOLLOW the rules in the paragraph above create problems, exactly? Please be specific, deep water and SmallFarm, because Brian's words here seem extremely straight-forward, simple, and easy to understand and follow. It's when people continually BREAK the rules in the above paragraph that problems ensue. MANY forum members do EXACTLY what Brian says NOT to do in this paragraph HE wrote, and yet NONE of the people who break THESE rules have been banned, to my knowledge (if Brian tells me they have, I will retract that statement).

The examples of people preaching "anti-Mormon/anti-LDS, and pro-Snuffer doctrine" is LEGION (no reference to you, Jason ;) ). The examples of people being "bitter and critical of LDS Church leaders" is BEYOND legion. Yet, they remain, free and consistently posting away to their hearts content. As I said, if Brian would remove the above paragraph from his forum rules, nobody could complain about anything - but as it is now, it's extremely deceptive and dishonest to have that paragraph in the rules, while continually allow many people to break said rules. But yeah, my opinion counts for squat, so why bother.

[deep water]

Rewcox; Just what were the qualifications to join Pauls one faith, one baptism. You might ask Ananias and Sapphira. They thought they could become a member of Christ's Church without living as a Saint. So we are left with a dilemma, if the church you profess as Christ's church, has different rules and covenants, is it still Christs Church? It was Christ that judged Ananias and Sapphira, not Paul or the other Apostles and prophets.

[SmallFarm]

How would you feel if someone came into your house and said "This is not an LDS home. This house does not serve the Lord."?

When a new poster asks, "Is this an anti Mormon site?" Then you can understand how LDSFF is coming across.

When General Conference is going on, and many posts belittle the church the church, you can see how it is coming across.

There are ex members and inactives posting like they know the truth, which much is negative against the church, you can see how LDSFF is coming across.

When the rules say this is a pro LDS forum, you can see where EmmaLee sees a paradox.

I noticed you didn't answer the question that I asked... ;)

[EmmaLee]

It's an opinion because it implies intent which is not validated with evidence.

Have Brian show us a list of everyone who's been banned. Then read the posts of those people.

The content of their posts means little, it is the offending posts where they broke the rules that is important.

Um, right - that's what I'm talking about - the content of the offending posts where they broke the rules.

[EmmaLee]

Another rule I see violated (in this thread even) by those who claim to be unfairly victimized:

If you disagree with the actions of a Moderator or the Forum Administrator you may address your concerns privately by contacting the Forum Administrator - making such concerns public may result in warning or banishment.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're passively-aggressively referring to me (and sorry, if you're not referring to me), then you have accused me falsely, as I have had MANY private conversations with Brian about every single thing I've said publicly on this thread and I have the PM's to prove it. I've also had many private conversations with previous moderators. Nothing changes. It's like those who want to change the Church - they complain and piss and moan about it, full well knowing nothing will change. I (and others) do the same with this forum. #-o

It's interesting that those who like working in the dark (the "private" HG forum, the "private" Snuffer FB groups, "addressing your concerns "privately", etc.), have such an intensely difficult time with what they perceive as the Church working in the dark on certain issues (finances, etc.). Pot/kettle. Yep, a lot of hypocrisy going around - something else we're ALL guilty of.

Your private conversations do not excuse you from publicly breaking the rules but nice try.

Thanks! I do my best. Your leaving out/never referring to the obvious paragraph in the rules (see my post above with that paragraph in blue) that consistently gets butchered and disregarded does not excuse you (and others) from egregiously breaking the rules in that paragraph either, but nice try there, too. ;)

[rewcox]

How would you feel if someone came into your house and said "This is not an LDS home. This house does not serve the Lord."?

When a new poster asks, "Is this an anti Mormon site?" Then you can understand how LDSFF is coming across.

When General Conference is going on, and many posts belittle the church the church, you can see how it is coming across.

There are ex members and inactives posting like they know the truth, which much is negative against the church, you can see how LDSFF is coming across.

When the rules say this is a pro LDS forum, you can see where EmmaLee sees a paradox.

I noticed you didn't answer the question that I asked... ;)

Today, I would suggest most people don't think LDSFF serves the Lord. It serves the disaffected and negative minded.

[deep water]

If you look into Brian's explanation of what the words mean to him, I believe you will find that he has kept true to his desires for the material discussed here. It is the view that others take his words to say that creates the problem.

This is the paragraph of Brian's rules that I'm referring to on this thread -

"What this forum is not. It is not an anti-Mormon/anti-LDS forum, not a Denver Snuffer forum, not a forum for any ‘remnant’ or LDS offshoot communities/movements/groups, and not a forum for being bitter and critical of LDS Church leaders."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me - not much wiggle room for what you think Brian's words mean to him (and yes, I'm quite aware he does not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ = the LDS Church, although I doubt most people on the forum today know that). So how do people who FOLLOW the rules in the paragraph above create problems, exactly? Please be specific, deep water and SmallFarm, because Brian's words here seem extremely straight-forward, simple, and easy to understand and follow. It's when people continually BREAK the rules in the above paragraph that problems ensue. MANY forum members do EXACTLY what Brian says NOT to do in this paragraph HE wrote, and yet NONE of the people who break THESE rules have been banned, to my knowledge (if Brian tells me they have, I will retract that statement).

The examples of people preaching "anti-Mormon/anti-LDS, and pro-Snuffer doctrine" is LEGION (no reference to you, Jason ;) ). The examples of people being "bitter and critical of LDS Church leaders" is BEYOND legion. Yet, they remain, free and consistently posting away to their hearts content. As I said, if Brian would remove the above paragraph from his forum rules, nobody could complain about anything - but as it is now, it's extremely deceptive and dishonest to have that paragraph in the rules, while continually allow many people to break said rules. But yeah, my opinion counts for squat, so why bother.

As I stated before, taking something out of context of the whole is deceitful, in my opinion. I ask again, someone seeking truth, would be concerned with truth, wouldn't they? Someone seeking something different, will be concerned with something different.

[SmallFarm]

You've put me in a nice box haven't you but I'm true blue and have defended the brethren numerous times. You know I tire or your accusations. Please know I will not be reading any of your posts further..

[EmmaLee]

How would you feel if someone came into your house and said "This is not an LDS home. This house does not serve the Lord."?

If I had a list of "house rules" and advertised that my "home" was not for anti-Mormon/anti-LDS/pro-Snuffer people/conversations, and then I let anti-Mormon/anti-LDS/pro-Snuffer people dictate every conversation in my "home", and I never kicked any of them out (but I kicked out the Mormon/LDS/anti-Snuffer people), then I sure hope somebody with an ounce of integrity would call me on it.

[SmallFarm]

How would you feel if someone came into your house and said "This is not an LDS home. This house does not serve the Lord."?

Today, I would suggest most people don't think LDSFF serves the Lord. It serves the disaffected and negative minded.

How is that an answer to my question. How would you feel?

[deep water]

Rewcox; Just what were the qualifications to join Pauls one faith, one baptism. You might ask Ananias and Sapphira. They thought they could become a member of Christ's Church without living as a Saint. So we are left with a dilemma, if the church you profess as Christ's church, has different rules and covenants, is it still Christs Church? It was Christ that judged Ananias and Sapphira, not Paul or the other Apostles and prophets.

Emma could you or Rewcox please explain this paradox in your view of your truth?

[EmmaLee]

If you look into Brian's explanation of what the words mean to him, I believe you will find that he has kept true to his desires for the material discussed here. It is the view that others take his words to say that creates the problem.

This is the paragraph of Brian's rules that I'm referring to on this thread -

"What this forum is not. It is not an anti-Mormon/anti-LDS forum, not a Denver Snuffer forum, not a forum for any ‘remnant’ or LDS offshoot communities/movements/groups, and not a forum for being bitter and critical of LDS Church leaders."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me - not much wiggle room for what you think Brian's words mean to him (and yes, I'm quite aware he does not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ = the LDS Church, although I doubt most people on the forum today know that). So how do people who FOLLOW the rules in the paragraph above create problems, exactly? Please be specific, deep water and SmallFarm, because Brian's words here seem extremely straight-forward, simple, and easy to understand and follow. It's when people continually BREAK the rules in the above paragraph that problems ensue. MANY forum members do EXACTLY what Brian says NOT to do in this paragraph HE wrote, and yet NONE of the people who break THESE rules have been banned, to my knowledge (if Brian tells me they have, I will retract that statement).

The examples of people preaching "anti-Mormon/anti-LDS, and pro-Snuffer doctrine" is LEGION (no reference to you, Jason ;) ). The examples of people being "bitter and critical of LDS Church leaders" is BEYOND legion. Yet, they remain, free and consistently posting away to their hearts content. As I said, if Brian would remove the above paragraph from his forum rules, nobody could complain about anything - but as it is now, it's extremely deceptive and dishonest to have that paragraph in the rules, while continually allow many people to break said rules. But yeah, my opinion counts for squat, so why bother.

As I stated before, taking something out of context of the whole is deceitful, in my opinion.

So I'M being "deceitful" for posting a cut and paste, word-for-word of Brian's actual rules?! The rules that are broken on a consistent basis. @-) Here's the link to his entire "Forum rules" - get as much context as you want - doesn't change a single word I said above.

viewtopic.php?t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[deep water]

Could we change this into something productive and answer the question I proposed to you or Rewcox.

[EmmaLee]

You've put me in a nice box haven't you but I'm true blue and have defended the brethren numerous times. You know I tire or your accusations. Please know I will not be reading any of your posts further..

I assume you're talking to me? What box have I put you in? YOU engaged ME in this conversation, yes? And started verbally slapping me when I hadn't said a word to, or about you, at all. I'm glad you're "true blue", whatever that means - and yes, I have seen you defend the Brethren before. How does that change, or even have anything to do with, what I've been trying to say here? I'm sorry you feel accused - welcome to the club. I'm also sorry you won't be reading anymore of my posts - if such is the case, I have failed indeed.

[SmallFarm]

You've put me in a nice box haven't you but I'm true blue and have defended the brethren numerous times. You know I tire or your accusations. Please know I will not be reading any of your posts further..

I assume you're talking to me? What box have I put you in? YOU engaged ME in this conversation, yes? And started verbally slapping me when I hadn't said a word to, or about you, at all. I'm glad you're "true blue", whatever that means - and yes, I have seen you defend the Brethren before. How does that change, or even have anything to do with, what I've been trying to say here? I'm sorry you feel accused - welcome to the club. I'm also sorry you won't be reading anymore of my posts - if such is the case, I have failed indeed.

You weren't putting me in the "them" camp at all?

[EmmaLee]

Rewcox; Just what were the qualifications to join Pauls one faith, one baptism. You might ask Ananias and Sapphira. They thought they could become a member of Christ's Church without living as a Saint. So we are left with a dilemma, if the church you profess as Christ's church, has different rules and covenants, is it still Christs Church? It was Christ that judged Ananias and Sapphira, not Paul or the other Apostles and prophets.

Emma could you or Rewcox please explain this paradox in your view of your truth?

I already gave my thoughts on whether this is Christ's Church or not as far as how it affects my beliefs/actions in and toward the Church. Pretty sure it was in this thread - if not, it was in response to another of your quotes today, so you should be able to find it quickly.