LDS Freedom Forum

Emma or rewcox; I was asking for you to help me understand this paradox I see, so I can understand what you believe and have faith in. I was just asking you to expose the rock you believe in. In order to ever become one, You have to think about these questions and be able to answer them. If you can answer them with some credible answer, then both you and I can learn and grow. Ignoring hard questions was never an option.

SmallFarm wrote:

EmmaLee wrote:

SmallFarm wrote: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?

No, not intentionally, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I have always recognized you as someone who tries to be fair, so some of the things you've said on this thread have surprised me - and I very possibly became more passionate about it than I should have. It may not seem like it at this point, but I have always liked you, SmallFarm, and I still do (genuinely).

EmmaLee wrote:No, not intentionally, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I have always recognized you as someone who tries to be fair, so some of the things you've said on this thread have surprised me - and I very possibly became more passionate about it than I should have. It may not seem like it at this point, but I have always liked you, SmallFarm, and I still do (genuinely).

I have this pet peeve about people complaining about the forum, especially after I moderated (which is why I bring it up all the time). People who complain about how Brian runs the forum, to me, are like people who complain about the mall in Salt Lake. They don't know about what is going on behind the scenes.
Do I get frustrated that there are wolves in sheep's clothing here that are good at following the letter of the forum rules while sneaking by anti stuff? Yes absolutely. But I get even more frustrated by the blatant, willful breaking of forum rules by good true LDS people who think they are defending the faith in doing so. I'm guilty of it too and even and especially in this morning's conversation with you but I'm just sick of it. Why can we just ignore the naysayers and seek to edify one another as much as we can.
This forum is what we make of it, Brain can only edit.
Anyways I was trying to start this off as an apology (by way of explaining myself) so I guess I'll end this way. I think of Brian as my friend and I'm sorry that I got mean spirited in trying to defend him.

deep water wrote:I was asking for you to help me understand this paradox I see, so I can understand what you believe and have faith in. I was just asking you to expose the rock you believe in.

The Rock I believe in is Jesus Christ, and the gospel he taught in the scriptures (mainly, the Book of Mormon and the New Testament, but I include and believe in all the scriptures, as far as any of them are translated correctly). My faith is in him, not in anything or anybody else. It is my belief that the LDS Church, warts and all, remains the best vehicle for coming to understand certain truths, and for receiving earthly ordinances (and yes, of course I believe they have to also be ratified by the Holy Ghost to be of any effect), etc. It is far from perfect - I acknowledge that - as I am far from perfect - as you are far from perfect - as everybody and every organization on this planet is far from perfect. But it is the scaffolding *I* choose to be affiliated with - if I am wrong, and Christ no longer has anything to do with the LDS Church, then the Lord will let me know in the same way he has let me know anything, I would hope. Thus far, he has undeniably told me to stay in it and do what I can to serve (pitiful as my efforts may be and no doubt are).

I choose to allow the Church/Brethren to do their thing as they see fit, and I have enough trust and faith in Christ to allow HIM to straighten anything out that may be amiss with the Church/Brethren, in HIS own due time. I am nothing, and know next to nothing, and I sin pretty much constantly and have great need of repentance and the atonement. My testimony is simple - maybe too simple for some to believe it's really even a testimony, or that I'm being honest about it, or whatever. But it is what it is. It has evolved tremendously over the last decade - and I would say, and strongly feel, for the better. Ten years ago, I never would have said or even thought the Church/Brethren had any warts at all - now I know they do, and guess what? That's okay! I don't fawn over the Church/Brethren, but I don't feel the need to bash and spit on them either. Even if they are 100% wrong on every matter, it's not up to me to fix it (how utterly prideful and arrogant would that be?!).

So, that's about it, deep water. Probably not what you were expecting and/or hoping for, but I tried to answer your question to the best of my ability.

will wrote:I have noticed, this forum is not what it used to be.
Just an observation.

To kind of take a step back I'll go back to the original post.
Something to consider.
Many of us use the active topics/ latest post feature. The best way to "self moderate" and offensive post, other than reporting it to a moderator, is to simply not comment on the post. A thread not commented on will drop to the bottom of the page and then eventually from even our memories.
On the other hand, to engage in a back in forth with those you disagree with will keep that thread active and in the view of all who frequent the site. This forum is not what it used to be because society is not what it used to be. Both the forum and society are what we make of it.

So why indite those who do not write the same words as you?

deep water wrote:Emma or rewcox; I was asking for you to help me understand this paradox I see, so I can understand what you believe and have faith in. I was just asking you to expose the rock you believe in. In order to ever become one, You have to think about these questions and be able to answer them. If you can answer them with some credible answer, then both you and I can learn and grow. Ignoring hard questions was never an option.

Only one name and person, Jesus Christ. He determined we need a church, apostles and prophets, and members. I worship God through Christ, I pray to God through Christ.

I also am a member of Christ's church.

Here is a link from General Conference to help you out: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... h?lang=eng

Rewcox if a=b and b=c then a=c. Therefore if a does not = b, and b does not = c, then a does not = c. You are saying that the Church at the time of Christ is the same church today because it uses some of the same words as His Church after His death. Yet you will not answer my question. You are caught in the same trap that christ caught the unbelieving Jews in because if you say that Christ is the same always, then the church would have to resemble the ancient Church in more than just words. If you say they are the same in more than just words, then you are saying Christ is a changeable God, and we cannot depend upon him because He might change.
Therefore you want me silenced, because you cannot disbelieve my words, so you ignore them and invite me to leave.

deep water wrote:So why indite those who do not write the same words as you?

Are you talking to me? It gets confusing trying to decipher who your questions are meant for sometimes. If you are talking to me, and if I understand your question - I will say again that I wouldn't care what anybody talks about on this forum *if* that paragraph in the rules was not there. It really is not more involved or difficult than that, and I don't know how else to say it. What I am referring to is the double-standard and deception. If everyone was treated equally by Brian, and if his rules actually described the forum, I wouldn't say a word, or "indict" anyone about anything they've said. If his rules stated, "Anything goes in relation to the LDS Church/Brethren, etc." I would never say a peep about anything anyone writes. But that is not what his rules say - quite the opposite, in fact - and THAT point is what seems to be continually missed here. Really not sure how many more times or ways it can be said. :ymsigh:

I ask why you indite those who do not write the same words as you, or think the same definitions as you do, not "indict".
The verb indite, rarely used today, means "compose" or "put down in writing," like when you find a quiet place to sit down with your notebook and pen and indite ..

deep water wrote:Rewcox if a=b and b=c then a=c. Therefore if a does not = b, and b does not = c, then a does not = c. You are saying that the Church at the time of Christ is the same church today because it uses some of the same words as His Church after His death. Yet you will not answer my question. You are caught in the same trap that christ caught the unbelieving Jews in because if you say that Christ is the same always, then the church would have to resemble the ancient Church in more than just words. If you say they are the same in more than just words, then you are saying Christ is a changeable God, and we cannot depend upon him because He might change.
Therefore you want me silenced, because you cannot disbelieve my words, so you ignore them and invite me to leave.

You start a thread on Zion, or something else. Invariably you say something about the church or leaders. Just talk about Zion. Leave the church out of it, since you disagree with the church. Denver Snuffer did/does the same thing. Just can't help taking jabs at the church.

I didn't setup the church during Joseph Smith's time. But I certainly am glad that it was restored. The church continues to roll forward. Some people jump off the good ship Zion.

deep water wrote:I ask why you indite those who do not write the same words as you, or think the same definitions as you do, not "indict".
The verb indite, rarely used today, means "compose" or "put down in writing," like when you find a quiet place to sit down with your notebook and pen and indite ..

Sorry, pardon me for misunderstanding which word you were using/meaning. Still doesn't change anything I said above though.

rewcox wrote:

deep water wrote:Rewcox if a=b and b=c then a=c. Therefore if a does not = b, and b does not = c, then a does not = c. You are saying that the Church at the time of Christ is the same church today because it uses some of the same words as His Church after His death. Yet you will not answer my question. You are caught in the same trap that christ caught the unbelieving Jews in because if you say that Christ is the same always, then the church would have to resemble the ancient Church in more than just words. If you say they are the same in more than just words, then you are saying Christ is a changeable God, and we cannot depend upon him because He might change.
Therefore you want me silenced, because you cannot disbelieve my words, so you ignore them and invite me to leave.

You start a thread on Zion, or something else. Invariably you say something about the church or leaders. Just talk about Zion. Leave the church out of it, since you disagree with the church. Denver Snuffer did/does the same thing. Just can't help taking jabs at the church.

I didn't setup the church during Joseph Smith's time. But I certainly am glad that it was restored. The church continues to roll forward. Some people jump off the good ship Zion.

Sometimes the best way to describe what something is, is to point out what it is not. I will bet that if a pole was taken in general conference, and the question was "do you believe we are a Zion people", the overwhelming answer would be YES. Therefore everyone that voted yes, would be lying.

EmmaLee wrote:

deep water wrote:I ask why you indite those who do not write the same words as you, or think the same definitions as you do, not "indict".
The verb indite, rarely used today, means "compose" or "put down in writing," like when you find a quiet place to sit down with your notebook and pen and indite ..

Sorry, pardon me for misunderstanding which word you were using/meaning. Still doesn't change anything I said above though.

It wasn't for the reason of misunderstanding that I pointed out your lack, it was for the condescending way you did it.---" indict"

deep water wrote:Sometimes the best way to describe what something is, is to point out what it is not. I will bet that if a pole was taken in general conference, and the question was "do you believe we are a Zion people", the overwhelming answer would be YES. Therefore everyone that voted yes, would be lying.

This is a pro LDS site, not an anti LDS site. You can believe what you will, but you are wrong. You are fighting against Christ's church and the apostles and prophets he has chosen.

deep water wrote:

rewcox wrote:

deep water wrote:Rewcox if a=b and b=c then a=c. Therefore if a does not = b, and b does not = c, then a does not = c. You are saying that the Church at the time of Christ is the same church today because it uses some of the same words as His Church after His death. Yet you will not answer my question. You are caught in the same trap that christ caught the unbelieving Jews in because if you say that Christ is the same always, then the church would have to resemble the ancient Church in more than just words. If you say they are the same in more than just words, then you are saying Christ is a changeable God, and we cannot depend upon him because He might change.
Therefore you want me silenced, because you cannot disbelieve my words, so you ignore them and invite me to leave.

You start a thread on Zion, or something else. Invariably you say something about the church or leaders. Just talk about Zion. Leave the church out of it, since you disagree with the church. Denver Snuffer did/does the same thing. Just can't help taking jabs at the church.

I didn't setup the church during Joseph Smith's time. But I certainly am glad that it was restored. The church continues to roll forward. Some people jump off the good ship Zion.

Sometimes the best way to describe what something is, is to point out what it is not. I will bet that if a pole was taken in general conference, and the question was "do you believe we are a Zion people", the overwhelming answer would be YES. Therefore everyone that voted yes, would be lying.

So stand up and answer my question Rewcox. Tell us all why you believe. Quit hiding behind other people's words, using them as a skirt. Show your learning. Repute my learning.

deep water wrote:So stand up and answer my question Rewcox. Tell us all why you believe. Quit hiding behind other people's words, using them as a skirt. Show your learning. Repute my learning.

I'm an average LDS Mormon, go to church. Believe in the doctrine. Love the Book of Mormon.

You refute your learning by yourself, by what you say. Jason has given you some scriptures. Stop fighting against the church!

deep water wrote:

EmmaLee wrote:

deep water wrote:I ask why you indite those who do not write the same words as you, or think the same definitions as you do, not "indict".
The verb indite, rarely used today, means "compose" or "put down in writing," like when you find a quiet place to sit down with your notebook and pen and indite ..

Sorry, pardon me for misunderstanding which word you were using/meaning. Still doesn't change anything I said above though.

It wasn't for the reason of misunderstanding that I pointed out your lack, it was for the condescending way you did it.---" indict"

Thank you for pointing out where I "lack", and that I did so in a "condescending" manner. Always a pleasure to be censured, scolded, and corrected by one such as yourself, deep ....

After a 1 year sabbatical it looks like nothing much has changed. Thanks Rewcox and Emma for standing for truth.

Personally I think many of us are a Zion people seeking to build Zion. When we are united working together to build the Lords kingdom with love we are building Zion. In my opinion Zion is a process in this lifetime that we are working towards, and as we align ourselves with the gospel of Christ we can be a Zion people. Anybody against the church of Christ or who wishes to demean, belittle or just jab at it is not apart of the Zion the LDS believe in. I am in the good ship Zion but personally I have a long ways to go - being in the ship is a good start. I partake of the fruit and yes, often those of the world point, laugh, belittle and do what they can to distract but I have found when you heed them not that is how you stay on the path. Bearing testimony and sharing scripture are needed for the non-believers as they need every opportunity as well. I am one you will never convince that this is not the true church of Christ. It is lead by prophets and apostles and though we may not be perfect tearing it down online doesn't do anything but hurt yourself. Zion takes patience - we need to understand this is a process and we will get there by lifting together.

Weird thread. It's like the non-trolls are trolling each other.

Separatist wrote:Weird thread. It's like the non-trolls are trolling each other.

And you came!

rewcox wrote:

SmallFarm wrote:

rewcox wrote:

SmallFarm wrote: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.

So like, the "least" among us?

EmmaLee wrote:

Cookies wrote:...or something like that. I don't know what I'm talking about. :-??

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. It is silly and a waste of time to go back and forth. I'm as guilty as anyone and I mentally smack myself every time I do it, and wish I'd just let them throw their insults and have their attacks and that I had the discipline to ignore it all.

What I'm mostly bothered by though, is just what happens on this forum. If a bunch of us were at a restaurant talking and saying the same things that have been said in this thread, I wouldn't be nearly as bothered. And here's why - Brian touts and sells this forum as "LDS", and not just any old LDS, but mainline, mainstream, non-fringe LDS. It says so right in his own rules and forum description. But what he lets happen here is far from those things. He bans mainline, mainstream LDS people like BeeP, Mark, Shadow, Jason, Tony/Franco, etc.. on a fairly regular, frequent basis - and in almost 10 years of being on this forum, I've never once seen him ban a non-mainline, non-mainstream, fringey type person (with the possible exception of Jesus). Why is that? He also deletes threads of mainstream LDS people without a word as to why. I've never seen him do the same to non-mainstream LDS people. Why is that?

Here's my point - I honestly and truly do not care which theology/version of the gospel gets preached on this forum - I really don't. It can be anything Brian wants it to be and I'm 100% good with that. BUT, he should present it and sell it FOR WHAT IT TRULY IS and NOT for what it is NOT - and as it is right now, it is most assuredly NOT an LDS forum as he himself describes it in the rules and forum description. It is very deceptive, disingenuous, and flat-out wrong for him to pretend to anyone, let alone new people who don't know the history of this place, that LDSFF is a safe place for mainline, mainstream, non-fringe LDS people to talk and share their thoughts - because it is not - and THAT is what causes the vast majority of misunderstandings, contention, strife, and other crap we see here on a daily basis.

Brian banned me a few weeks ago. I wrote him an email and explained my position, he chose to reinstate me (thus the reference to Lazarus in my sig line - I'm back from the dead). He has also deleted at least 2 threads I started and several posts. I don't care a lot because it's all just electronic musings, anyway, and if he doesn't want them in his house he's free to toss them.

FYI - I'm pretty sincere in what I post. I'd likely say the same things to people that I write on the forum. Life is too short for games and dishonest discussion.

Thank you for sharing that. I was not aware. I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.

EmmaLee wrote:Thank you for sharing that. I was not aware. I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.

Of course, in posting above, I guess we're all assuming I'm a non-mainline, non-mainstream, fringey guy. That is strange to write - 5 years ago I would have seen things much as Tony does today. I suspect one of my adult daughters who lurks here could confirm that without hesitation (don't blow your cover kiddo). Perhaps even 3 years ago, too... I'm not unhappy to let some of my old paradigms go, because with them went a lot of unfounded personal self righteousness, smugness and dogmatism that saturated my old POV. Maybe I'm the only TBM who suffered those characteristics, but I tend to think not, based on decades of observation.

I'd offer to smoke a peace pipe with you EmmaLee, but I don't smoke - the WoW recommends against it.