my poll was publicly removed..this is my email to moderator

[ryanjenny1997]

Hello,

I do not understand why my poll was removed? I have read many posts of people arguing about apostasy on here. I have read many posts of people arguing over other things. I have read posts about 911 conspiracies that are very touchy with some of the leadership of the church, and yet all their posts still are active!

I just felt my poll was a good way to see where different people stood on here in one simple poll since many posts deal with my polls subject matter anyway. My poll had no arguing on it thus far. Many people on here have posted what was in my poll. Some think all is well, some think GA's are wicked, some think GA's are righteous, but members are wicked, etc....yet their posts still stand.

Just so you know from me personally, that I have a full testimony of Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith (whom i am related to as well as others) and I know without 1 doubt that Thomas Monson is God's prophet whom holds the keys of the priesthood.

I feel this is prejidous because the poll was nuetral to many already displayed posts. I want to know why i have been singled out. For example, as far as I know some of the GA's do not believe 911 was an inside job, and yet there are many posts promoting that it was. This could be considered heresy, and yet they still stand. I know some of the people on here personally, and they also cannot understand this ejection of my poll.

Sincerely

Ryan

[will]

Sure lets poll to see who feels the GA are wicked. I did not feel your poll was appropriate, Please note I did not ask that it needed to be removed either nor did I complain to the moderator.. However, I am glad it was. It did make me second guess with whom I was sharing my testimony with. Why would I want to share anything with some who question the Church Leaders?? I have learned a lesson on this. That lesson is to be careful when I cast my pearls. Again, PLEASE NOTE I am not saying you questioned the GAs however some of the ones you polled did and that was enough for me.

[ryanjenny1997]

Hello Will,

Maybe since their obviously are people on here who do question at different levels their leaders, your testimony could help them.

This is not the "all is well in Zion" forum. Just read hundreds of posts and see what I mean. We should want to share our testimonies with unbelievers, or the rebellious right?

That is missionary work! So my poll gets penalized for being direct, when their are so many people on here that fit all 4 poll questions. So why get offended at directness. My poll questions simply were condensing the belief systems of people on here in one place.

[LukeAir2008]

[ryanjenny1997]

Hello Lukeair2008

I love your Eagle up in the corner, the way it turns its head and opens its mouth....funny

I edited a little on my initial post. I was in a hurry and made the mistake of lumping all the GA's together. Woops. ofcourse they have many opinions, etc

My experience with many Mormons is that they think 911 was not an inside job. I came here to this sight because of the diversity. I know it was an inside job, but certainly am tolerant at those whom don't think it was.

This is why I put up the GA poll, because I wanted to know where people stand on this forum in an easy one stop poll. There are people on here that believe a lot of different things. Some think Monson is questionable all the way to some think he is perfect.

It was an innocent poll so I thought because it was nuetral. Instead of people having a problem with my poll, I had hoped they would reach out to those whom they thought were in error, and bear their testimony. It was supposed to show the diversity, and yet try to bring us together.

Oh well, still love ya all, and the moderators.

So

[ChelC]

Your post was removed because the moderators decided it was apostate like behavior. Whether intended that way or not, the moderators thought it inappropriate and a violation of site rules.

[creator]

Myself and multiple moderators and members of the forum felt that the poll is inappropriate. It's one thing to discuss whether 911 was a conspiracy and another to discuss whether the Lord's anointed ones are apostate. While I believe it's possible that there are some apostate general authorities, that's not the point, and it's not something I'm going to discuss on this forum. If there are specific GA's who we believe are apostate the proper action would be to talk to your bishop, stake president and so on up the line. Discussion of whether GA's are apostate is a violation of the forum rules.

If you come across discussions that violate the rules please send a message to myself or other moderators (include the link/URL and specifics regarding what you feel violates the rules) and we will take appropriate action.

You'll find that it's not very often we edit or delete posts and discussions, but questioning the GA's is one thing we just don't want to see. It's that kind of discussion that leads some people into true apostasy.

In the past we had a member of the forum who was going as far as posting specifics regarding certain general authorities and how they were apostate and had supposed ties to conspiratorial groups and such. We deleted those too. While it may seem prejudice or hypocritical that we won't allow discussion of apostate GA's and will allow discussion of Secret Combinations, conspiracies, corrupt politicians, etc... well, that's just the choice we've made. And even then when discussing other conspiracies, if a person singles out someone we ask that they be able to backup their claim with some supporting evidence.

This is nothing against you. I hope you understand my decision.

Please review the forum rules: http://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1800

[kathyn]

My problem with the poll was that it didn't have a question about the GA's being mostly righteous (or just righteous) as well as most members being righteous. I was shocked to see that some thought the GAs were unrighteous. Perfect, they are not....righteous...I truly believe they are. And seeing as how they are coming under more and more attack, we just don't need to add to those negative feelings. They are the Lord's anointed and I am so grateful for their unselfish service and work in behalf of the members of the church.

[lamanite]

I thought the poll was reasonable enough although I did not like the way the results were shaping up... Still i don't think the poll was too suggestive or leading in any way and seemed appropriate enough. I guess we all see things differently though.

[NoGreaterLove]

Thanks for removing it! It was a direct attack on the integrity of the priesthood of God. The GA are those whom God has chosen to lead his people. They need to be treated as such. I completely agree with the decision to remove it. It was promoting blatant apostasy.

[Blip]

I think you were just running into some political issues. This forum does not want to be considered apostate. And the answers were writing the sins in the sand so to speak.

I think your questions were awesome. The results gave me a whole new outlook on my surroundings. I don't think people liked the results. It had very little to do with you. You questions should have covered a wider base though.

[AussieOi]

Myself and multiple moderators and members of the forum felt that the poll is inappropriate. It's one thing to discuss whether 911 was a conspiracy and another to discuss whether the Lord's anointed ones are apostate. While I believe it's possible that there are some apostate general authorities, that's not the point, and it's not something I'm going to discuss on this forum. If there are specific GA's who we believe are apostate the proper action would be to talk to your bishop, stake president and so on up the line. Discussion of whether GA's are apostate is a violation of the forum rules.

If you come across discussions that violate the rules please send a message to myself or other moderators (include the link/URL and specifics regarding what you feel violates the rules) and we will take appropriate action.

You'll find that it's not very often we edit or delete posts and discussions, but questioning the GA's is one thing we just don't want to see. It's that kind of discussion that leads some people into true apostasy.

In the past we had a member of the forum who was going as far as posting specifics regarding certain general authorities and how they were apostate and had supposed ties to conspiratorial groups and such. We deleted those too. While it may seem prejudice or hypocritical that we won't allow discussion of apostate GA's and will allow discussion of Secret Combinations, conspiracies, corrupt politicians, etc... well, that's just the choice we've made. And even then when discussing other conspiracies, if a person singles out someone we ask that they be able to backup their claim with some supporting evidence.

This is nothing against you. I hope you understand my decision.

Please review the forum rules: http://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1800

on a specific basis if it broke the rules thats the end of the story. Brian pays $100 a month and its his baby and i support that 100,000%.

Now, that said, what were the questions?

I'm happy enough to see the_voting_of them removed, but i still think they can be left there to provide context for this thread. Or is it apostate to mention them? (are we "there" yet?)

i thought we only modded p0rn here? granted specific accusations have no place- unless grounded- and i agree little can be gained by entertaining such hypotheticals, and that a vote is rather tasteless,but er, whats the damage going on? how on earth can the priesthood be damaged for instance by this? we um, having looked out the window at the world lately?

i mean lets consider. if we get negative votes it suggest we have visitors who are either damaged in their testimony, or people visiting who aren't members.

with regards to the former isn't such a thread an opportunity to minister to them and help repaid some damage one?

with regards to the latter isn't this an opportunity to testify? i mean they are here!!!! think about it.

surely the thousands and thousands of pages on this web site speak louder than a few votes one way or another on one insignificant thread?

or do we think that the entire site and its contributors and their comments are embodied within a vote?

personally, i think we should return the questions within a post (not the header) and create a rule that for the sake of the discussion within the thread any comments posting a vote will not make it.

again, i don't know what the vote was, whether it was vile crass or tasteless.


>>>>>>>>It's one thing to discuss whether 911 was a conspiracy and another to discuss whether the Lord's anointed ones are apostate.

I agree that very little can be gained by entertaining whether they are apostate and discussing the pros or cons of specific behaviour


>>>>>>While I believe it's possible that there are some apostate general authorities,
that's not the point, and it's not something I'm going to discuss on this forum.

um, hang on brian, you just did. for what it is worth I don't believe there are any apostate general authorities. perhaps we can move the thread to discussing what behaviour would constitute apostate for a male member?

i agree that very little can come from this thread between say you and me for instance, or 2 mods, or ChelC and I. However i wonder if a better course is to remove the voting buttons, remove accusatory posts or tasteless or irreverent if they arrive, let it evolve (hopefully very well and common ground found and any bridges mended), then you have final say, then lock it


>>>>>>>> If there are specific GA's who we believe are apostate the proper action would be to talk to your bishop, stake president and so on up the line.


clearly i didnt see the post(s). if it was specific then agree don't want it here. if general then the thread of "can a GA be apostate" could evolve into a positive thread as against a "these guys are apostate" thread.



>>>>>>You'll find that it's not very often we edit or delete posts and discussions,

very true. for that reason ryanjenny dont let this one bother you. this place is like being given a holiday mansion for the summer and being asked to stay out of one locked cupboard in the 7th bathroom upstairs.



>>>>>>but questioning the GA's is one thing we just don't want to see. It's that kind of discussion that leads some people into true apostasy.

i accept that this can happen. i also wonder if these people would be better off having 30 of us comment positively to them. if they have a problem with this issue what, we think they're going to let it rest? its going to stop being an issue for them all of a sudden? they aren't going to find some liars like ex mormons for jesus on the web ready to stoke that fire? might we do better with the metaphorical fire extinguisher?

whats our next sacred cow that we think needs silencing? granted i don't want this place to degenerate into an apologetic, but is this the best way to handle it?

I agree that "If there are_specific_GA's who we believe are apostate the proper action IS to talk to your bishop, stake president and so on up the line.



>>>>Discussion of whether GA's are apostate is a violation of the forum rules.

I accept that this ain't about right or wrong but the rules.

And rule #1 is that this is YOUR house- you make the rules

That being the case, I gotta stir you on this one...."it's possible that there are some apostate general authorities".................."Discussion of whether GA's are apostate is a violation of the forum rules."

[AussieOi]

My problem with the poll was that it didn't have a question about the GA's being mostly righteous (or just righteous) as well as most members being righteous. I was shocked to see that some thought the GAs were unrighteous. Perfect, they are not....righteous...I truly believe they are. And seeing as how they are coming under more and more attack, we just don't need to add to those negative feelings. They are the Lord's anointed and I am so grateful for their unselfish service and work in behalf of the members of the church.

Kathyn I agree with your sentiments on the brethren

i see how such a thread gives us the opportunity to express such.

similarly for me to say that i struggled wit many things of the brethren with what i didnt and don't understand about their (apparent) support of the Iraq war and being close the the bush republican administration

i let that get int he way of renewing a temple recomend and regret that i let my pride do that.

i havent "come around" to any position, i just decided to accept that "what would i know" and that my opinions on the right or legality of say the war can remain. and that sometimes the brethren can speak their own opinion and we can be human.

but when it comes to the keys of the church and priesthood, there are no mistakes or errors in judgement going on and the church is perfect, just made up of imperfect people, starting with the most imperfect of them all, me. im happy with 99.999999%

if it were me we'd be down in the 20's.

can it be 100%. No! the scriptures tell us so. there was only ONE sinless one, one perfect one. if our leaders were 100% perfect then we would be playing a very different game of life and wouldnt be here not need them.

if any members here are concerned that a person is with bad behaviour or error of judgement, let it go, chances are more information will emerge, a new position understood or you might just be plain wrong even. who knows how complicated this all is. but these are great men giving it everything.

we joke about one prophets comments about the missionaries "they're all we've got".

maybe the lord chuckles the same with us brethren "they're all i've got"

thankfully he is running the show. if anything got off the rails he'd get it right one way or another

[oneClimbs]

Exodus 17:11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. 12 But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

This is how I view the priesthood and church leadership. Do any of us understand the burdens they carry? Do we sit and look at Moses saying: "Look at him, he can't even hold his hands up - he's weak. Maybe he's the wrong man for the job." Or do we say "That's the man God gave me to show me the way and I'll stand by him and sustain him!" Call me a sheep if you want to - I don't mind, because I know the shepherd that I follow. I am well aware of the quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and other about placing too much trust in men that we follow them to apostasy. I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, it is our DUTY to do everything in our power to sustain those God has placed in authority, especially when they need us.

I'm reminded of Spencer W. Kimball's quote: “Even in the Church, many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterday’s prophets and mentally stone the living ones”. Do we sustain the prophets in our thoughts and in our speech with others? Are we Sunday morning quarterbacks? We are not asked or required to go and prop up our priesthood holders when they are weak or need our help, but then again...

sustaining.png (170.62 KiB) Viewed 576 times

http://broadcast.lds.org/genconf/2007/1 ... 1_eng_.mp4

Though they are men like us, we have APOSTLES among us people!

[ShawnC]

Exodus 17:11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. 12 But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

This is how I view the priesthood and church leadership. Do any of us understand the burdens they carry? Do we sit and look at Moses saying: "Look at him, he can't even hold his hands up - he's weak. Maybe he's the wrong man for the job." Or do we say "That's the man God gave me to show me the way and I'll stand by him and sustain him!" Call me a sheep if you want to - I don't mind, because I know the shepherd that I follow. I am well aware of the quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and other about placing too much trust in men that we follow them to apostasy. I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, it is our DUTY to do everything in our power to sustain those God has placed in authority, especially when they need us.

I'm reminded of Spencer W. Kimball's quote: “Even in the Church, many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterday’s prophets and mentally stone the living ones”. Do we sustain the prophets in our thoughts and in our speech with others? Are we Sunday morning quarterbacks? We are not asked or required to go and prop up our priesthood holders when they are weak or need our help, but then again...

sustaining.png

http://broadcast.lds.org/genconf/2007/1 ... 1_eng_.mp4

Though they are men like us, we have APOSTLES among us people!

Steve,

This picture and your words brought tears to my eyes. Thank you, sincerely.

Shawn

[ithink]

Have a look at this picture. Then ditto this for every living Apostle and GA, and every one that lived in the past. I see an incredible picture of love, peace, harmony. I don't agree with every word that every "prophet" has spoken, but I also know I have access to a lot of those words they spoke, but not as prophets, and for that reason I won't hold them responsible and "make a man an offender for a word". In the end, I squirm sometimes, but I really don't care about their political statements or whatever. When the rubber hits the road, these men and their wives are some of the finest that have ever lived, and I need to live so that when I meet these people, I can meet Pres. Hinckley and greet sister Hinckley (and others) and say "I sustained, in word and more importantly in deed, your husband in his calling as prophet, thank you for allowing him to do that for us".

[jbalm]

Together so long that they look alike.