Why is my (mms) story, if true, of such concern to some?

[_karl61]

I think that the problem mms experienced is one that is often experienced in cyberworld. We cannot see the person who is posting. We only have his or her words and such words are left open to our own interpretations. But we cannot see the human being behind the words.

Mms comes across as a great person. But he or she was banned from MAAD. I do believe that they had their reasons but basically, when a board is in operation, the person, the human gets left behind and the posts become the real essence of the human being. And this would be a false premise.

I do think mms that you may be banned but there is a chance for your ban to be lifted. Go to another computer and write a message to one of the mods and express regret for the ban and then promise to be a good boy or girl and asked to be let on again. Tell them your story from the heart. I think that it would work.
Also, I would suggest posting in the fellowship thread or LDSforums for dialogue and not debate.

Too funny!

[_cksalmon]

I do think mms that you may be banned but there is a chance for your ban to be lifted. Go to another computer and write a message to one of the mods and express regret for the ban and then promise to be a good boy or girl and asked to be let on again. Tell them your story from the heart. I think that it would work.

Also, I would suggest posting in the fellowship thread or LDSforums for dialogue and not debate.

Nothing like being a good boy for reinstatement. Just don't ask tough questions as a questioning LDS. Doing so, one is sure to incur the wrath of Juliann and the gang.

Suggestions for mms:

(1) Don't ask controversial questions--it identifies you as an anti.

(2) Don't expect a warm welcome merely by virtue of being an actual LDS. If you ask pertinent questions--as an LDS, rather than a critic--you'll incur the wrath of the LDS members.

(3) Pose as an "anti." You'll be perceived as a lost cause, and you won't be subject to such abuse.

(4) Whatever you do, don't post as a questioning LDS. Your cover will be immediately blown, the gang will realize you're an "anti" in disguise, and you'll get, inevitably, short-shrifted.

Better to be an anti with lost-cause questions, than an LDS with legitimate ones.

If the latter, there will be no mercy for you on MADB.

Best.

Chris

[_mms]

I do think mms that you may be banned but there is a chance for your ban to be lifted. Go to another computer and write a message to one of the mods and express regret for the ban and then promise to be a good boy or girl and asked to be let on again. Tell them your story from the heart. I think that it would work.

Also, I would suggest posting in the fellowship thread or LDSforums for dialogue and not debate.

Nothing like being a good boy for reinstatement. Just don't ask tough questions as a questioning LDS. Doing so, one is sure to incur the wrath of Juliann and the gang.

Suggestions for mms:

(1) Don't ask controversial questions--it identifies you as an anti.

(2) Don't expect a warm welcome merely by virtue of being an actual LDS. If you ask pertinent questions--as an LDS, rather than a critic--you'll incur the wrath of the LDS members.

(3) Pose as an "anti." You'll be perceived as a lost cause, and you won't be subject to such abuse.

(4) Whatever you do, don't post as a questioning LDS. Your cover will be immediately blown, the gang will realize you're an "anti" in disguise, and you'll get, inevitably, short-shrifted.

Better to be an anti with lost-cause questions, than an LDS with legitimate ones.

If the latter, there will be no mercy for you on MADB.

Best.

Chris

Amazingly (because of the irony), this makes a lot of sense. Whooda thunk? Not me.

[_wenglund]

Easiest thing I recall is the post you made about moderating the forum, in which I responded quite harshly. The manner in which you phrased the questions made it come across as an attack on the moderating practices. Then in this post, the way you phrased your question seemed as if you were accusing mms.

I think what pushes it across as inflammatory is the mention of specific alternatives in your question. If you're looking to explore, there's no need to mention a specific alternative -- just count out the original. Make sense? Maybe not.

I appreciate you providing me these examples. It helps me to better understand your reaction to what I wrote.

However, I am wondering what it is about my mentioning specific alternatives (which are intended for clarification in specific ways--and not to be inflammatory) that somehow makes my geniune exploritory questions inflammatory to you and others (though certainly not everyone I pose those kinds of questions to)? I ask because I am trying to assertain whether the questions are inheritantly inflammatory or not, or if there may be something else causing the inflamation in some people.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG...

A number of years ago when I was at wits end in regards to the church and all of the stuff I was finding out, I went to talk to an uncle of mine. Retired BYU professor, served in a Stake Presidency and was a Bishop. Stalwart guy in the church. I came away from the conversation with him taking one thing that I'll always remember. He said that the only time he really takes anything seriously that comes out of SL is when it is underneath the letterhead of the first presidency with each one of their signatures at the bottom.

In other words's he didn't let much of the periphery stuff that wasn't considered to be core principles, doctrine, and practice bother him to the extent that these things became deal breakers. He personally had been through the wringer at BYU back during the Wilkensen years. Had personally been on the hot seat and sought intervention from some of the trustees. This guy has been around the block. He's published a book dealing with a segment of early Mormon history.

So I think that you're right in some respects. Arm of the flesh means relying on any man/woman under conditions in which they may have partial light/partial discernment. We each are the final arbiter as to what is right for us and our families. Even so, I don't know that understanding this to be the case negates the possibility that God's work, with his stamp of approval/authority, is accomplished as the three fold mission of the church moves onward.

See, I had the mistaken idea that it was good to have faith, trust the prophet who is the mouthpiece for Christ, believe scripture and the prophets interpretation..... I guess that was relying on the arm of flesh. ;-)

Today I trust my personal beliefs... what feels right in my heart, what makes sense, what helps me move toward holiness. It pretty much conflicts with many of the LDS teachings/doctrines/beliefs.

But hey... maybe according to your scriptures I'm actually doing the right thing by not trusting those who claim to know truth!

LOL!

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

(2) Don't expect a warm welcome merely by virtue of being an actual LDS. If you ask pertinent questions--as an LDS, rather than a critic--you'll incur the wrath of the LDS members.

(3) Pose as an "anti." You'll be perceived as a lost cause, and you won't be subject to such abuse.

(4) Whatever you do, don't post as a questioning LDS. Your cover will be immediately blown, the gang will realize you're an "anti" in disguise, and you'll get, inevitably, short-shrifted.

I think the point of one of my comments is that it is all too easy and tempting to troll under these circumstances. Mention the fact that you are a card-carrying Mormon, an RM, a high priest, married in the temple, and so forth. Oh yes, and anoymously. Why, really, are those details necessary except to somehow either undermine the faith of the weak or reel in the unsuspecting?

How impressed are you when somebody comes on this board and defends the Church and says, oh, by the way, I am a convert from an EV ministry and am now a bishop and a Greek scholar? [Hmm - Roger Keller comes to mind.] I just don't think credentials do anything to support or weaken an argument except illogically.

rcrocket

[_mms]

I think the point of one of my comments is that it is all too easy and tempting to troll under these circumstances. Mention the fact that you are a card-carrying Mormon, an RM, a high priest, married in the temple, and so forth. Oh yes, and anoymously. Why, really, are those details necessary except to somehow either undermine the faith of the weak or reel in the unsuspecting?

How impressed are you when somebody comes on this board and defends the Church and says, oh, by the way, I am a convert from an EV ministry and am now a bishop and a Greek scholar? [Hmm - Roger Keller comes to mind.] I just don't think credentials do anything to support or weaken an argument except illogically.

rcrocket

But Crock, what is the harm in believing the story and moving forward by either ignoring the poster or giving the benefit of the doubt? Indeed, the harm attacking as a troll is the possibility that the story is true and that you will have potentially put the nail in the coffin on someone's quest (I remember some folks at MA&D saying that I did "not identify with saints". This made me feel, irrationally, of course,at least for the moment, like maybe I should simply move on from the church, as I no longer identify with the saints according to these wonderful and knowledgable defenders of the faith.)

When someone comes to a board with a story like mine, how about you either ignore it if you think it is a waste of your time and potentially fraudulent, or give the person the benefit of the doubt. Again, what is the harm in doing so, as the potential harm in not doing so is obvious?

[_Chap]

I think the point of one of my comments is that it is all too easy and tempting to troll under these circumstances. Mention the fact that you are a card-carrying Mormon, an RM, a high priest, married in the temple, and so forth. Oh yes, and anoymously. Why, really, are those details necessary except to somehow either undermine the faith of the weak or reel in the unsuspecting?

How impressed are you when somebody comes on this board and defends the Church and says, oh, by the way, I am a convert from an EV ministry and am now a bishop and a Greek scholar? [Hmm - Roger Keller comes to mind.] I just don't think credentials do anything to support or weaken an argument except illogically.

rcrocket

But Crock, what is the harm in believing the story and moving forward by either ignoring the poster or giving the benefit of the doubt? Indeed, the harm attacking as a troll is the possibility that the story is true and that you will have potentially put the nail in the coffin on someone's quest (I remember some folks at MA&D saying that I did "not identify with saints". This made me feel, irrationally, of course,at least for the moment, like maybe I should simply move on from the church, as I no longer identify with the saints according to these wonderful and knowledgable defenders of the faith.)

When someone comes to a board with a story like mine, how about you either ignore it if you think it is a waste of your time and potentially fraudulent, or give the person the benefit of the doubt. Again, what is the harm in doing so, as the potential harm in not doing so is obvious?

My observation suggest that most of the nasties on the MAD board are scared of being caught out by a trickster and laughed at. But what harm would that do?

My preference, however, is for posters who stay anonymous, and make no claims that they cannot back up on the board. Argument and evidence alone, none of that 'believe me, I KNOW,and I am a tenured Professor at Poughkeepsie Bible College' stuff. But I appreciate that other people have their reasons for posting from a more personal standpoint.

[_cksalmon]

[Hmm - Roger Keller comes to mind.]

Keller's Reformed Christians and Mormon Christians: Let's Talk ranks, in my mind, as one of the worst examples of (attempted) interfaith dialog I've ever read.

I really do believe Keller was already a convert while writing the book--he officially converted to the LDS religion very shortly after (in the same year) the book was published. His understanding of Reformed theology is woefully shallow. And his analyses seem, to my reading, painfully biased toward the LDS viewpoint.

Example: Chapter 9

Keller argues that, of course, it is true that Mormons are modern-day Israelites, exactly as they suggest they are. He uncritically and approvingly quotes Madsen at this point:

"The point is that Mormons believe themselves to be Israelites in a literal sense and also to be closely related to the Indians, who are also physically descended from Israelites. The Mormons, then, are a continuation of what the fathers of the Christian Church were to come to call Old Israel. But for the Mormons there is no Old Israel. They simple regard themselves as Israel in a new state of its history" (Reflections on Mormonism, ed. Truman G. Madsen [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978], p. 81)

Inexplicably, Keller comments:

This is, at first glance, an astounding assertion, and yet it is true.

On the Reformed side of the equation, Keller basically writes: the mainline Christian church has long been anti-semitic. And, "Reformed Christians have much to learn from Mormon Christians about the importance of Israel before God."

Or, perhaps, Keller has a lot to learn about the Reformed understanding of Judaism?

Either way, Keller consistently devotes more time to explicating and largely consenting to the LDS view of the issues he surveys. As a superficial LDS apologetic, I suppose the book works fine. But, it fails actually to capture and defend the Reformed view on any significant issues.

I hope you're a better scholar than Keller demonstrated himself to be in this book. I've checked Deseret books, but can't find anything else that he's written there.

Oh well.

Best.

CKS

[_rcrocket]

But Crock, what is the harm in believing the story and moving forward by either ignoring the poster or giving the benefit of the doubt? Indeed, the harm attacking as a troll is the possibility that the story is true and that you will have potentially put the nail in the coffin on someone's quest (I remember some folks at MA&D saying that I did "not identify with saints". This made me feel, irrationally, of course,at least for the moment, like maybe I should simply move on from the church, as I no longer identify with the saints according to these wonderful and knowledgable defenders of the faith.)

When someone comes to a board with a story like mine, how about you either ignore it if you think it is a waste of your time and potentially fraudulent, or give the person the benefit of the doubt. Again, what is the harm in doing so, as the potential harm in not doing so is obvious?

If you don't want commentary about your credentials and personal anecdotes, don't offer them up for comments.

I have no view one way or the other about you leaving or staying in the church, but I can't see why you'd want to waste any time with an organization you think if false. In my case, the Spirit convicts me of the truth and the necessary to speak it.

rcrocket