Mormon Doctrine alive and well

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

If you are minority, let's go eat at La Casita, in Springville. Lots of minorities there.

Actually, not really except for the help.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Did you just play the "you dont have to read it" card?....the online chat board equivalent to taking your ball and going home? If you post it, then it is out there to be read, agreed with, dissected, disagreed with, etc. Same goes for my posts. If it truly is a personal journey, dont post it on the world wide web.

I dont consider what anyone writes here to be for my edification. Should I? Is anyone here writing directly for me?

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that my observations are demeaning and insulting, while the observations of others are simply legitimate inquiries of faith? That seems hypocritical to me, but, once again, I could be misunderstanding.

Also, it isnt just one person. I think several here are negative towards the Church.

DDD-
let me just give you a little background on some people here who are critical of the Church.

Adam & MikeWaters really want the Church to succeed. They magnify their callings with zeal.

SleepEQ is restrained in his criticism, more so than the other two. He also dutifully magnifies his calling.

I don't know enough about the others, but some are like them as well.

Archaea prefers to theologize.

There are some who are apathetic and are trying to drag others with them. One of them is very slick. Be careful.

I hope you contribute positives to this board.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

DDD-
let me just give you a little background on some people here who are critical of the Church.

Adam & MikeWaters really want the Church to succeed. They magnify their callings with zeal.

SleepEQ is restrained in his criticism, more so than the other two. He also dutifully magnifies his calling.

I don't know enough about the others, but some are like them as well.

Archaea prefers to theologize.

There are some who are apathetic and are trying to drag others with them. One of them is very slick. Be careful.

I hope you contribute positives to this board.

One of the apologists reminds me of that old saying, you can try to hide shit under a snow bank, but the snow will melt.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

DDD-
let me just give you a little background on some people here who are critical of the Church.

Adam & MikeWaters really want the Church to succeed. They magnify their callings with zeal.

SleepEQ is restrained in his criticism, more so than the other two. He also dutifully magnifies his calling.

I don't know enough about the others, but some are like them as well.

Archaea prefers to theologize.

There are some who are apathetic and are trying to drag others with them. One of them is very slick. Be careful.

I hope you contribute positives to this board.

Chino,

Thanks for the insights.

And to Mr Slick........look forward to chatting.

I enjoy posting. You all havent even begun to experience my food posts yet...

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I am going to shun science because scientific principles have changed over time and, in the past, some "scientists" had some really crazy notions about how things operated.

Who needs science?

I wish modern day scientiests would stop trying to hide the past from me. I grew up in SoCal and received an A in science and I dont remember my science teacher spending a ton of time on oudated, disproven scientific theories. they seemed to want to focus on theories that had been proven and that have applicability.

What a rip off!

You're having quite a fun time floating ideas out there to see if they fly today. :-) Good for you, that is the whole point of a place like this.

On point, there is a good post in some other thread that discusses why that is a flawed analogy. Essentially that science is not a fixed set of beliefs but is a process that by it nature undergoes constant revision, whereas religion makes a series of claims regarding specific events and what they mean. One you expect to be revised, the other you are surprised when it is. Having ongoing revelation resolves some of the conflict for the LDS church, but not all.

Maybe the author of that post will happen by here and be kind enough to link it.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, I asked BYUruss if his knowledge about Joseph Smith's marriages had affected any of a number of things relating to church membership and activity, and even as much as he keeps going on about it here, he said it hadn't; so it must've not really been that relevant after all.

Again, the answers are out there if people want to look for them. I don't agree that it's the church's responsibility to cover everything for everyone.

Indy, do you not see the hypocrisy of spending consecrated funds to own and develop sacred sites for the purpose of building testimonies based upon LDS history, yet easilly dismissing faith uninspiring history as "irrelevent to one's salvation?" Faith inspiring history is equally "irrelevent to one's salvation" yet why consecrated funds are spent to develop it? I believe it is obvious the leaders conclude that if faith inspiring historical sites and stories build faith of the members it is therefore relevent to that individual's salvation and thus the investment of consecrated funds is worthwhile. If positive history can build then certainly the negative can destroy. Since it is the LDS Church which is purposely seeking to utilize its positive history as a tool for building faith it is exposing its members who come across the bad. Since the LDS Church chose to approach its history as a faith inspiring tool, it becomes its responsibility to prepare its members for having the rug pulled out from under their feet......

[Archaea]

Wow talk about a thread spinning out of control, and I didn't even spur on the most of it.

I bet many of you, who have not read it, would enjoy People of Paradox.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

You're having quite a fun time floating ideas out there to see if they fly today. :-) Good for you, that is the whole point of a place like this.

On point, there is a good post in some other thread that discusses why that is a flawed analogy. Essentially that science is not a fixed set of beliefs but is a process that by it nature undergoes constant revision, whereas religion makes a series of claims regarding specific events and what they mean. One you expect to be revised, the other you are surprised when it is. Having ongoing revelation resolves some of the conflict for the LDS church, but not all.

Maybe the author of that post will happen by here and be kind enough to link it.

Lots of conference calls means lots of free time...ha!

Any LDS religionist who is surprised to find out that our beliefs change over dispensations, over years, from prophet to prophet....is fooling themselves. I certainly do not think that. The Gospel is continually changing and evolving. And has been since the beginning.....not every aspect of it, but some aspects, to be sure. Religion is a process....conversion is a process....continued revelation is a process.

Religion and science actually like each other and pass each other notes in class.....they just dont like to admit it yet. I have a feeling that they will wind up dating and spending the rest of their lives together. Eventually. But, then again, I am a hopeless romantic....

[Solon]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Did you just play the "you dont have to read it" card?....the online chat board equivalent to taking your ball and going home? If you post it, then it is out there to be read, agreed with, dissected, disagreed with, etc. Same goes for my posts. If it truly is a personal journey, dont post it on the world wide web.

I dont consider what anyone writes here to be for my edification. Should I? Is anyone here writing directly for me?

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that my observations are demeaning and insulting, while the observations of others are simply legitimate inquiries of faith? That seems hypocritical to me, but, once again, I could be misunderstanding.

Also, it isnt just one person. I think several here are negative towards the Church.

Yeah, that's it.
It's not even my ball.

I must have been unclear because you seem like a reasonable guy. All I was saying is to cut some slack to those posts / posters you might consider "non-edifying." Someone can hold nontraditional, even critical or (gasp!) negative views on various LDS subjects and still be an upstanding LDS.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Solon

Yeah, that's it.
It's not even my ball.

I must have been unclear because you seem like a reasonable guy. All I was saying is to cut some slack to those posts / posters you might consider "non-edifying." Someone can hold nontraditional, even critical or (gasp!) negative views on various LDS subjects and still be an upstanding LDS.

Slack cut.

I agree about standing in the Church as it relates to personal, political, or social viewpoints. I see your point.

To clarify, I am not offended by the posts of others. There really is no need for slack to be cut (although I understand the sentiment you are trying to convey). I was simply making an observation about my thoughts here in my first month on the board. I think some read it more as an accusation. To be fair, it can read as an accusation....sort of my calling heathens to repentance. This is something I do not do. I have never called for anyone to change their posting style, much less their personal methods of practicing their faith. On the other side of the coin, I dont spend a lot of time bashing "mullahs" for their approach, either. A disposition to do such was never in my nature....