Invasion of the Trollls

[A Random Phrase]

It seems that there were quite a number of regular posters who were also Denver Snuffer readers and as Snuffer became more critical of the church, so did many of his readers.

But, with the closing of HG private area, many of them left, so it should have helped balanced out the critics to believers ratio, but I don't think it did.

No, they didn't leave. They just don't mention Snuffer by name anymore, but continue to promote and preach his doctrine, very carefully wording things

Actually, many have left. Some, like me, check in from time to time. Most have little interest in this forum unless someone brings a certain thread to our attention (then we may return to read it). If you look at who posts most regularly here, you will see it is only a handful of people who believe DS is a true messenger from God (like less than 5 people). And, sometimes, Obrien is a little harsh. I would just accept that he is what he is and let his words slide off my back.

[Magus]

DS = this Denver Snuffer or whatever guy, amiright? First time I ever heard of him was here. Sounds like Utah drama. Fun. Meanwhile, in Dixie....

[A Random Phrase]

There are others here who post, who do not have the TBM view of things, who have no belief in DS as a messenger (and may not have even heard of him).

P.S. I do NOT consider TBM an epithet. I consider it a compliment, coming from the story in history. ("Are you a Mormon?" asked the man brandishing a gun, who had been threatening to kill any Mormon he found. "Yessiree. True blue, through and through," was the reply, even though he was facing a death threat. How can there be an insult to be called something that originated in that story?)

[A Random Phrase]

amiright?

Yes.

[EmmaLee]

EmmaLee and will, you both have been here longer than most of us. Why don't you spend more time in the gospel discussions?
Who's version of the gospel would end up being discussed? There are so many different ones preached here, it's impossible to keep track. Also, despite what you might think because of this particular thread, I loathe contention and fighting, and especially in relation to gospel topics - and since every gospel type discussion thread I've seen in almost 10 years devolves into chaos sooner or later, with the exact same types of arguments (no, I'm right, you blind follower! - no, I'm right, you apostate!), I'm just really not interested. And since the forum owner/administrator/moderator leans heavily towards the non-typical LDS gospel, he moderates accordingly and shuts down the "discussions" or even deletes whole threads and/or bans people who have not broken rules any more than Obrien has in this very thread. So, that's why I usually don't bother, Marc.

Please start new worthwhile discussions that edify rather than perpetuate discussions like this one.
So trying to clear my name of lies and insults is "perpetuating discussions like this one". You wouldn't stand up for your name, Marc? Tell me, why aren't you chastising Thinker and Obrien for "perpetuating discussions like this one"? Oh right, because they are in YOUR camp of gospel beliefs. And this is why I don't bother with "gospel" discussions on "LDS"FF, because the majority of posters are like you, Thinker, Obrien, Lizzy60, etc. and the rest who cause contention aren't even LDS at all anymore.

[A Random Phrase]

Who's version of the gospel would end up being discussed?

She's got a point here.

[Desert Roses]

DS = this Denver Snuffer or whatever guy, amiright? First time I ever heard of him was here. Sounds like Utah drama. Fun. Meanwhile, in Dixie....

Which Dixie? Red hills, sandstone, and Zion just minutes away Dixie?

[Magus]

DS = this Denver Snuffer or whatever guy, amiright? First time I ever heard of him was here. Sounds like Utah drama. Fun. Meanwhile, in Dixie....

Which Dixie? Red hills, sandstone, and Zion just minutes away Dixie?

The Land of Cotton, where old times are not forgotten. ;)

[marc]

EmmaLee and will, you both have been here longer than most of us. Why don't you spend more time in the gospel discussions?
Who's version of the gospel would end up being discussed? There are so many different ones preached here, it's impossible to keep track. It can be. I find that studying it out and preparing thoughtful responses, including starting new topics really helps and adds to the edification of all.Also, despite what you might think because of this particular thread, I loathe contention and fighting, and especially in relation to gospel topics - and since every gospel type discussion thread I've seen in almost 10 years devolves into chaos sooner or later, with the exact same types of arguments (no, I'm right, you blind follower! - no, I'm right, you apostate!), I'm just really not interested. So when you say every gospel type discussion, you mean 100% or just 100% of the ones you peruse? I know I could find one right now in under one minute, which is completely harmonious And since the forum owner/administrator/moderator leans heavily towards the non-typical LDS gospel, he moderates accordingly and shuts down the "discussions" or even deletes whole threads and/or bans people who have not broken rules any more than Obrien has in this very thread. So, that's why I usually don't bother, Marc.It can be daunting. I have learned that the road to discipleship is not at all easily navigable without patience, brotherly kindness, meekness, longsuffering, faith, hope, charity. It's heartbreaking, I know. But it is a good teacher.

Please start new worthwhile discussions that edify rather than perpetuate discussions like this one.
So trying to clear my name of lies and insults is "perpetuating discussions like this one". You wouldn't stand up for your name, Marc? You called me out out first, dear EmmaLee. You noticed and put a spotlight on my thanks to Thinker without asking me why I thanked him, yet you did not mention my post inviting everyone to the Book of Mormon study thread. So in an effort to be reconciled with you, I simply thanked your post in kind rather than engage in any contention with you. Tell me, why aren't you chastising Thinker and Obrien for "perpetuating discussions like this one"? Oh right, because they are in YOUR camp of gospel beliefs. And this is why I don't bother with "gospel" discussions on "LDS"FF, because the majority of posters are like you, Thinker, Obrien, Lizzy60, etc. and the rest who cause contention aren't even LDS at all anymore.Again, had you asked me why I thanked Thinker rather than call me out in your post, which if I recall is about hypocrisy, I would have gladly and honestly answered. As for Obrien, I seldom read his posts and I can't remember Lizzy's last post either. I do believe Obrien was one who I privately addressed when I was a moderator, but there were many, so I can't recall honestly. There are many others who instigate just like Obrien that I also don't "chastise" regardless of whatever camp they believe. My only comment in this discussion until you called me out was an invitation to join me in the other BoM study thread until you brought me into it. EmmaLee, this is the second time I am trying to be reconciled with you. I hope you forgive me for causing you distress. I will bow out of this discussion now.

[Obrien]

EmmaLee - "cryptic" and "obsequious" are words that have meanings. They are called adjectives.

Rewcox is often cryptic in his one liner posts. The real meaning of said posts probably only is known to Rewcox. That doesn't make him bad or mean, just cryptic.

TBM's reactions to conference talks by GAs are often obsequious. If you disagree, you aren't paying attention.

There's a word for that too, EmmaLee - it's "inattentive". I know it's a big word, but with your keyboard and the Google, you too can gain a rudimentary vocabulary that will allow you to communicate with others using your own thoughts, instead of simply highlighting the thoughts of others.
Good luck Rewcox EmmaLee.

Thanks, Obrien! I love you, too. :ymhug:

You're welcome. I always encourage self improvement through education.
Thanks for responding with your own thoughts. Keep on that path, and you'll be posting real content before long.
Best of luck to you.
Was the "I love you" above a sincere sentiment, or a Screwtape sentiment - hard to tell without body language / vocal intonation.

PS - several posts ago, I did not insult Rewcox by using the word "cryptic". It is just a word. "Obsequious" is also just a word, and was not intended to necessarily describe Rewcox. It was meant in reference to the majority of LDS who swoon over conference addresses, consider buying "ponderize" merchandise, and those who print all manner of curious meme-manship in the days and weeks following GC.

[Thinker]

Emma,
Thank you for clarifying, even if you did put me down.
It was as I thought.
I apologize for suggesting you and others who call people names, have herd mentality.
No doubt that may have been expressed better.

[Jeremy]

You can Think yourself right out of the church. That seems to be a common theme these days.

That is an interesting observation. It causes me to wonder which is more harmful, thinking yourself out or not thinking and staying in. Granted there are other options such as thinking yourself in or not thinking and getting out... etc. But, in the first contrast, assuming "the church is true", which is more harmful. Not thinking but following or thinking and not following.

I'm not sure the answer changes regardless of "the church" being "true" or not.

FWIW - I am not intending to accuse anyone of being a thinker or non-thinker. If anything, I am encouraging us to celebrate agency and perhaps ponder its importance in this awesome journey. I happen to believe thinking and possibly making the wrong choice is of more value to the soul than not thinking but being on the "right" side.

[David13]

Hmm, there are over twenty forum members on this forum at the moment I type this out and zero forum members in the gospel discussion forum. Just in case anyone was curious.

Marc, give me a chance here, I can only follow one thread at a time.
But I'm also very leery of some of the preposterous gospel interpretation I've seen on this forum. I'm new to the church this year, but still I have some power of discernment.
dc

[David13]

DS = this Denver Snuffer or whatever guy, amiright? First time I ever heard of him was here. Sounds like Utah drama. Fun. Meanwhile, in Dixie....

No, he is not talking about the Dixie Mission. He might not even know about the Dixie Mission.
Magus, do you mind if I call you Magnus, like O'brien does? Thank you.

Magnus, I knew which Dixie you meant.
You mention Utah drama. There is a lot of it. I visit Utah many times a year, and the Saints here are in large part one way or another closely tied to Utah, and thus also up there regularly.
But it is an unbelievably beautiful state and the extent of the church there is amazing and magnificent.

As to your Dixie, I just heard a Dixie Drama story today (from a Utah connected source) with regard to the 1978 proclamation, I think it was a proclamation or announcement which story is not suitable for repeating here.
dc

[marc]

Hmm, there are over twenty forum members on this forum at the moment I type this out and zero forum members in the gospel discussion forum. Just in case anyone was curious.

Marc, give me a chance here, I can only follow one thread at a time.
But I'm also very leery of some of the preposterous gospel interpretation I've seen on this forum. I'm new to the church this year, but still I have some power of discernment.
dc

I always default to the scriptures. It's why they are referred to as the "standard works." Incidentally, I am more apt to engage someone who supports his/her statements with scriptural references and/or citations with quotes from prophets and apostles, although they ought to square with the scriptures, which isn't always the case. Even Peter erred on occasion requiring correction from Paul. I've been in your shoes, though a long time ago. Making the scriptures your constant companion will help tremendously. That is what I did because of my patriarchal blessing and it has made all the difference.

[Magus]

DS = this Denver Snuffer or whatever guy, amiright? First time I ever heard of him was here. Sounds like Utah drama. Fun. Meanwhile, in Dixie....

No, he is not talking about the Dixie Mission. He might not even know about the Dixie Mission.
Magus, do you mind if I call you Magnus, like O'brien does? Thank you.

Magnus, I knew which Dixie you meant.
You mention Utah drama. There is a lot of it. I visit Utah many times a year, and the Saints here are in large part one way or another closely tied to Utah, and thus also up there regularly.
But it is an unbelievably beautiful state and the extent of the church there is amazing and magnificent.

As to your Dixie, I just heard a Dixie Drama story today (from a Utah connected source) with regard to the 1978 proclamation, I think it was a proclamation or announcement which story is not suitable for repeating here.
dc

I haven't heard about the Dixie Drama story you mention. You'll have to fill me in.

[EmmaLee]

It seems that there were quite a number of regular posters who were also Denver Snuffer readers and as Snuffer became more critical of the church, so did many of his readers.

But, with the closing of HG private area, many of them left, so it should have helped balanced out the critics to believers ratio, but I don't think it did.

No, they didn't leave. They just don't mention Snuffer by name anymore, but continue to promote and preach his doctrine, very carefully wording things

Actually, many have left. Some, like me, check in from time to time. Most have little interest in this forum unless someone brings a certain thread to our attention (then we may return to read it). If you look at who posts most regularly here, you will see it is only a handful of people who believe DS is a true messenger from God (like less than 5 people).
I would agree many have left, but it only takes one. One who pretends to be something they're not by preaching Snuffer's doctrines without ever mentioning his name, on a supposedly LDS forum - and he preaches a LOT. But who cares, right?!

And, sometimes, Obrien is a little harsh. I would just accept that he is what he is and let his words slide off my back. So it's okay for him to break the forum rules and not be held accountable, because he's just Obrien after all. But it's not okay for TBM's/MM's to break those same rules, and they get banned for it? That's fine, if that's how the game is played - but it's a blatant lie for someone to then say there's no double-standard on this forum.

[EdGoble]

Good observation! Definitely not the same forum it was3 or 4 years back. Used to be you got booted for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed...now it's a frequent commonplace occurrence...not even delving into the rest of the typical banter these days. Sad but just another sign of the times...

I just hope that those that are loyal to the Lord's anointed will continue to call people out for it, and not remain silent, and not allow themselves to be beat down by those in the other camp. Yes, we must find some way to be more respectful. I know I do in particular. But we cannot remain silent on this.

[EmmaLee]

I guess I missed that it was addressed to both Thinker and Obrien, I thought she was addressing Obrien's comments by highlighting some of his own words...and she also used some of Thinker's comments because they were relevant and noteworthy to the point she was making.

At least that is the way I took it.

I was trying to point out - by using their own words (so nothing would be misunderstood) - the hypocrisy and irony of Obrien insulting someone, then the insulted person replied, and Thinker jumped in with her "logical fallacy" speech and how low-life it is (for some people) to insult other people, and Obrien thanked her for her post. The obvious hypocrisy and irony was apparently missed by those who needed to see it the most. Then I was personally attacked by Obrien and Thinker (and their buddies) for merely using their own words and not even adding any commentary of my own at all (yet more irony). Ah well, it's par for the course for LDSFF.

[Jason]

I guess I missed that it was addressed to both Thinker and Obrien, I thought she was addressing Obrien's comments by highlighting some of his own words...and she also used some of Thinker's comments because they were relevant and noteworthy to the point she was making.

At least that is the way I took it.

I was trying to point out - by using their own words (so nothing would be misunderstood) - the hypocrisy and irony of Obrien insulting someone, then the insulted person replied, and Thinker jumped in with her "logical fallacy" speech and how low-life it is (for some people) to insult other people, and Obrien thanked her for her post. The obvious hypocrisy and irony was apparently missed by those who needed to see it the most. Then I was personally attacked by Obrien and Thinker (and their buddies) for merely using their own words and not even adding any commentary of my own at all (yet more irony). Ah well, it's par for the course for LDSFF.

Indeed it is...at least you haven't been banned over it yet to my knowledge. I got banned a couple years back for pointing out that Alan "Rock" Waterman and Denver Snuffer were on the apostate path (justification was that I was personally attacking forum members by calling them out on their comments). Rubbed the snufferite moderator wrong....who was on the apostate path himself and was a bit later subsequently excommunicated.

Be patient...time will tell the story...for better or worse...and sooner or later their fruits eventually catch up with them...even if only at the judgment bar of Christ!

[EmmaLee]

I get told by Thinker that I need to write and discuss MORE on this thread -

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

And when I foolishly oblige her, I get told by Marc to cease and desist and to stop "perpetuating discussions like this one" -

EmmaLee and will, you both have been here longer than most of us. Why don't you spend more time in the gospel discussions? Please start new worthwhile discussions that edify rather than perpetuate discussions like this one.

I either try to defend myself from Thinker's personal attacks against me - or - I do as Marc says and leave the thread. A girl can't win for losing.

[EmmaLee]

There are others here who post, who do not have the TBM view of things, who have no belief in DS as a messenger (and may not have even heard of him).

P.S. I do NOT consider TBM an epithet. I consider it a compliment, coming from the story in history. ("Are you a Mormon?" asked the man brandishing a gun, who had been threatening to kill any Mormon he found. "Yessiree. True blue, through and through," was the reply, even though he was facing a death threat. How can there be an insult to be called something that originated in that story?)

I've seen plenty of people (in the HG forum, and in some of the FB groups) say that to them "TBM" means "true blind Mormon" - obviously meaning they view people who remain faithful in the LDS Church as "blind".

[Robert Sinclair]

Faithful to the whordom of Ephraim, in perverting all equity, is spiritual blindness, but don't worry, it wont last forever.♡

[EmmaLee]

EmmaLee - "cryptic" and "obsequious" are words that have meanings. They are called adjectives.

Rewcox is often cryptic in his one liner posts. The real meaning of said posts probably only is known to Rewcox. That doesn't make him bad or mean, just cryptic.

TBM's reactions to conference talks by GAs are often obsequious. If you disagree, you aren't paying attention.

There's a word for that too, EmmaLee - it's "inattentive". I know it's a big word, but with your keyboard and the Google, you too can gain a rudimentary vocabulary that will allow you to communicate with others using your own thoughts, instead of simply highlighting the thoughts of others.
Good luck Rewcox EmmaLee.

Thanks, Obrien! I love you, too. :ymhug:

You're welcome. I always encourage self improvement through education.
Thanks for responding with your own thoughts. Keep on that path, and you'll be posting real content before long.
Best of luck to you. I appreciate your sincere efforts to help educate me, Obrien - I know they are from the heart. There's nothing I could say that would match your intellect, so I didn't even bother trying - I would have just embarrassed myself even further than I already have.
Was the "I love you" above a sincere sentiment, or a Screwtape sentiment - hard to tell without body language / vocal intonation. At first it was more the Screwtape sentiment - but now I sincerely mean it.

PS - several posts ago, I did not insult Rewcox by using the word "cryptic". It is just a word. "Obsequious" is also just a word, and was not intended to necessarily describe Rewcox. It was meant in reference to the majority of LDS who swoon over conference addresses, consider buying "ponderize" merchandise, and those who print all manner of curious meme-manship in the days and weeks following GC. As a wise old Grinch said once, "One man's garbage is another man's potpourri" - so I guess the whole insult thing is in the eye of the beholder. The Lord knows what's in all our heart's, and what we mean by what we say, etc. As for "obsequious", I knew exactly what you meant - the swooning, the merchandise, the meme's - and I couldn't agree with you more.

[EmmaLee]

You can Think yourself right out of the church. That seems to be a common theme these days.

That is an interesting observation. It causes me to wonder which is more harmful, thinking yourself out or not thinking and staying in. Granted there are other options such as thinking yourself in or not thinking and getting out... etc. But, in the first contrast, assuming "the church is true", which is more harmful. Not thinking but following or thinking and not following.

I'm not sure the answer changes regardless of "the church" being "true" or not.

FWIW - I am not intending to accuse anyone of being a thinker or non-thinker. If anything, I am encouraging us to celebrate agency and perhaps ponder its importance in this awesome journey. I happen to believe thinking and possibly making the wrong choice is of more value to the soul than not thinking but being on the "right" side.

Is there no option of thinking and staying in? (mostly a rhetorical question; I have my answer)