LDS Freedom Forum

Stahura wrote: Whatever you say friend. I seek only to talk about the doctrine of Christ.

People from all sides and beliefs tend to act as if they are better than others. I will not talk about specific people or groups, because I will not point my finger at my brother.
I'm withrdrawing from this thread becuase this conversation is a waste of time and it's contentious.

Ps. if someone makes a statement about no specific group of people and you get bothered/offended defensive, what does that tell you?

AI2.0 wrote:There are so few mainstream, believing LDS on this board, it's a real blow to the board when they leave, either because of banning or choosing to leave.

shadow wrote:I needed therapy while I was banned :-T

He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man. He has taken something away from the memory of a prophet. He has destroyed faith. I remind you of the truth Shakespeare taught, ironically spoken by Iago: “Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed” (Othello, act, sc., lines 57–6).

The sad thing is that he may have, in years past, taken great interest in those who led the Church and desired to draw close to them. But instead of following that long, steep, discouraging, and occasionally dangerous path to spiritual achievement, instead of going up to where they were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps justify his own weaknesses.

I agree with President Stephen L Richards, who stated:“If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pastime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, if may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.“This ‘debunking,’ we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known.

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

rewcox wrote:The fringe buffet at LDSFF is not appealing for mainstreamers, maybe not meant to be.

The fringers enjoy promoting their belief sets and don't appreciate those who believe in the church and leaders. False prophets abound, they love it here.

Maybe EmmaLee will come back.

EmmaLee wrote:

deep water wrote: 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.

EmmaLee wrote:

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:

AI2.0 wrote:

Stahura wrote:

AI2.0 wrote:

Stahura wrote: This is what I frequently hear throughout this thread/forum.
" O God, we know that we are a chosen group, and we are favored over our brethren for we are more righteous than they"

As Rewcox asked, who are you referring to? Who do you believe thinks they are 'a chosen group' and 'favored' because they think they are more righteous than others? Please explain exactly who you are identifying with this post.

I will not speak of any specific person or group. I will not get caught in a mudslinging contest.

It's only an observation, this is the attitude that I frequently see here.
Maybe any person who has this attitude will realize it and stop, regardless of their group or belief.

So, some nameless people are the troublemakers here? They are so full of themselves that they think they are above everyone else and you're able to identify them but 'don't want get caught in a mudslinging contenst'?
You were the one who started throwing 'mud' and now you want it to stop? It's NOT going to stop as long as people do this stuff and then ignore they're part of the problem.

This is what I'm tired of. People who make the kind of veiled attacks which you are guilty of with this comment, and then try to retreat and pretend that it's someone else causing the trouble.

It's pretty easy to go back and read this thread from the beginning to see which respondents posts fed the flames of dissent and which ones helped dissipate them.

skmo wrote:

shadow wrote:I needed therapy while I was banned :-T

Are you trying to convince us you no longer need it?

Jason wrote:

He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man. He has taken something away from the memory of a prophet. He has destroyed faith. I remind you of the truth Shakespeare taught, ironically spoken by Iago: “Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed” (Othello, act, sc., lines 57–6).

The sad thing is that he may have, in years past, taken great interest in those who led the Church and desired to draw close to them. But instead of following that long, steep, discouraging, and occasionally dangerous path to spiritual achievement, instead of going up to where they were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps justify his own weaknesses.

I agree with President Stephen L Richards, who stated:“If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pastime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, if may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.“This ‘debunking,’ we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known.

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/ ... ct_eng.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obrien wrote:

rewcox wrote:The fringe buffet at LDSFF is not appealing for mainstreamers, maybe not meant to be.

The fringers enjoy promoting their belief sets and don't appreciate those who believe in the church and leaders. False prophets abound, they love it here.

Maybe EmmaLee will come back.

I think EmmaLee is a Rewcox sock puppet.
No offense intended, just an observation.

Obrien wrote:It was a joke...y'all seem to match in lock step.

Besides, maybe you're really EmmaLee's sock puppet...

Did you survive the storm ok?

Obrien wrote:It was a joke...y'all seem to match in lock step.

Besides, maybe you're really EmmaLee's sock puppet...

Did you survive the storm ok?

rewcox wrote:

Obrien wrote:It was a joke...y'all seem to match in lock step.

Besides, maybe you're really EmmaLee's sock puppet...

Did you survive the storm ok?

Actually been raining harder today.

Obrien wrote:

skmo wrote:

shadow wrote:I needed therapy while I was banned :-T

Are you trying to convince us you no longer need it?

How do you "double thank" for a post on this forum!?!
;)

rewcox wrote:

Obrien wrote:

rewcox wrote:The fringe buffet at LDSFF is not appealing for mainstreamers, maybe not meant to be.

The fringers enjoy promoting their belief sets and don't appreciate those who believe in the church and leaders. False prophets abound, they love it here.

Maybe EmmaLee will come back.

I think EmmaLee is a Rewcox sock puppet.
No offense intended, just an observation.

Did you wake up groggy. EmmaLee was way before me. You were 2 years before me.

President Monson in his last address said that doubt and faith cannot coexist. My time here, I've seen how doubt has impacted many individuals. The movement towards Christ should also be a movement to charity.

If a person is "awakening" but not being filled with charity, something is wrong.

rewcox wrote:Trolls will be trolls.

jwharton wrote:

rewcox wrote:Trolls will be trolls.

You can also think yourself into justifying the shedding of innocent blood while thinking you are "righteous".
By the definition many people are using here, Abinadi would be burned at the stake all over again.
I experience being accused of being a troll at times for my non-conventional perspective.
Throwing out this accusation too loosely is very unhelpful to the health of a forum.
People want a place where they can freely share their sincere beliefs.
If this can be maintained then the forum will stay healthy.

bornfree wrote:I'm new, define troll please.

Obrien wrote:

bornfree wrote:I'm new, define troll please.

New to the forum, or new to the internet? Use startpage search engine, and you'll find a multitude of info relative to trolls.
Good luck born free. Great screen name selection.

rewcox wrote:Hi jwharton.

I encourage everyone to read the Book of Mormon. At a high level, it is about 2 different civilizations that perished because they followed the wrong beliefs.

There are individuals and groups who proposed beliefs, yet those beliefs led to destruction. I like Amulek, yet his people were destroyed in one day.

There are a few here who support the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and its leaders. Others think the church and leaders are in apostasy, others have left the church and preach their version of truth.

EmmaLee left because of these fringe beliefs. So you tell me about the health of the forum.

As far as the temporal health, it would be interesting to know how much Brian makes on the advertisements. I suspect I drive a fair amount of business his way.

jwharton wrote:

rewcox wrote:Trolls will be trolls.

You can also think yourself into justifying the shedding of innocent blood while thinking you are "righteous".
By the definition many people are using here, Abinadi would be burned at the stake all over again.
I experience being accused of being a troll at times for my non-conventional perspective.
Throwing out this accusation too loosely is very unhelpful to the health of a forum.
People want a place where they can freely share their sincere beliefs.
If this can be maintained then the forum will stay healthy.