Are we enemies?

[_wenglund]

I think Plutarch is correct in suggesting that many here wish to evade personal responsibility and accountability--to the point of not even honestly acknowledging they are periodic adversaries, or opponents, or foes of the CoJCoLDS (connotations and synonyms for the word "enemy").

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course you agree with Plutarch, Wade. You and he are cut from the same cloth. Willful blindness isn't a virtue, but Plutarch and you have both tried to raise it to that level.

I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separate the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.

I think I understand what you are saying. I am aware of women who incessantly berrate and nag their husbands, gossip and backbite, whine and complain about them, blame their husbands for their woes, rarely if ever have a kind, supportive, or encouraging word to say about them, and then when pressed, will say "sure I love my husband" and "I am not an enemy of my husband", and honestly mean it.

But, as mentioned previously, that is because these "wives" lack the capacity for honest introspection and have a near inpregnable aversion to accepting personal responsibility. Were they to have been subjected to the same kind of treatment by their husbands, they would be the first to cry "abuse" and to accuse their husbands of being an adversary, oppositon, foe, and an enemy. But, for the life of them, they cannot see it in themselves.

I see you, harmony/serenity/WAZing, as being that kind of "wife" to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Whether intending to or not, you thoroughly illustrated my point. I do appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually not, but if it makes you feel good, knock yourself out. Chris <><

I am not going to continue the "yes you are...no I'm not...yes you are...no I'm not" exchang. You are free to go as deep into denial as you think you need, and utterly refuse to be personally accountable and responsible, but that won't change the reality of what I have said. In fact, it again unwittingly illustrates it.

If, on the other hand, you want to get into specifics of where you may have done exactly as I have said, and test whether I am right or wrong, then I am open to that. What about you? (Careful, the way you answer this question will unavoidably speak to whether you or I am right about what I have said.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_christopher]

I am not going to continue the "yes you are...no I'm not...yes you are...no I'm not" exchang.

Then quit responding to the thread asshat, if that's all you can do.

You are free to go as deep into denial as you think you need, and utterly refuse to be personally accountable and responsible, but that won't change the reality of what I have said. In fact, it again unwittingly illustrates it.

It only displays your inability to understand that perhaps the church isn't what it says it is. Period. People can have problems, but maybe it's the teachings they aren't buying.

If, on the other hand, you want to get into specifics of where you may have done exactly as I have said, and test whether I am right or wrong, then I am open to that. What about you? (Careful, the way you answer this question will unavoidably speak to whether you or I am right about what I have said.)

Oh, damn, that's right.....it's always the person's problems not the church. Just make it a part of your testimony on Fast Sunday. I did quite a bit a self examination. I wanted the church to be true. I lived it, I loved it. Kept trying to believe as I studied and learned more. Sorry, it isn't even close to what it claims to be even though I wanted it to be.....and it wasn't my fault.


Chris <><


PS: Hey Scratch...if you do a little blurb on Brother Wade here, make sure you add his repetitious "It's obviously your fault not the church's problems mantra" in there somehow.

[_Runtu]

I don't know, Wade. I think opposition to the church comes for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who are as you describe. Most exmormons I know have done a lot of soul-searching and introspection. And for me, one of the primary reasons I have left the church (insofar that I am out) is the realization of my own complicity and responsibility for the things I did and thought as a member.

I will take you at your word. I am unfamiliar with you as "Runtu", and thus don't know who you are or much about what you have had to say about the Church. But, if you are correct, then I trust going forward that I will see what you say above predominating in your posts.

From my experience with critics of my faith, though, you would be the exception rather than the rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've known you for quite a while, actually. I used to post as Johnny_cat when I was a believer on FAIR. Haven't been back there in about a year, I think. Sure, there are bad examples on both sides of the equation, but the people I've met who are currently in the church or have left have for the most part been thoughtful, intelligent people who probably would like each other if they weren't so opposed to each other's religious perspectives.

[_wenglund]

If, on the other hand, you want to get into specifics of where you may have done exactly as I have said, and test whether I am right or wrong, then I am open to that. What about you? (Careful, the way you answer this question will unavoidably speak to whether you or I am right about what I have said.)

Oh, damn, that's right.....it's always the person's problems not the church. Just make it a part of your testimony on Fast Sunday. I did quite a bit a self examination. I wanted the church to be true. I lived it, I loved it. Kept trying to believe as I studied and learned more. Sorry, it isn't even close to what it claims to be even though I wanted it to be.....and it wasn't my fault.

Chris <>.

I noticed that you carefully avoided directly answering my question. But, since I am feeling somewhat charitable, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't understand the gist of what I was asking.

So, let me put it another way. Please pick the single most eggregious thing you believe the Church has done to you personally, and let's look and see whether that perception may be a function of your own inability to accept personal responsibility. Feel free to open a separate thread in this forum for that purpose. Let's see just how convinced you are that you are right.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

[_wenglund]

I don't know, Wade. I think opposition to the church comes for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who are as you describe. Most exmormons I know have done a lot of soul-searching and introspection. And for me, one of the primary reasons I have left the church (insofar that I am out) is the realization of my own complicity and responsibility for the things I did and thought as a member.

I will take you at your word. I am unfamiliar with you as "Runtu", and thus don't know who you are or much about what you have had to say about the Church. But, if you are correct, then I trust going forward that I will see what you say above predominating in your posts.

From my experience with critics of my faith, though, you would be the exception rather than the rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've known you for quite a while, actually. I used to post as Johnny_cat when I was a believer on FAIR. Haven't been back there in about a year, I think. Sure, there are bad examples on both sides of the equation, but the people I've met who are currently in the church or have left have for the most part been thoughtful, intelligent people who probably would like each other if they weren't so opposed to each other's religious perspectives.

I agree. My comments were not in general for those who have left the Church, or whose testimonies were wavering. Rather, they were specific to CRITICS of the Church--in other words, those who publically criticize the Church, particularly those who predominate in their criticisms and have little or nothing positive to say about the Church.

And, I wasn't suggesting that critics can't be nice and likeable people, but that they tend to lack the capacity to accept personal responsibility, which is a function of a lack of open and honest introspection. In other words, they tend to be blame finders who ardently resist seeing themselves as a possible suspect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

But, it is a fundamental belief of the Church that Gordon B. Hinckley is the only man on earth who holds all of the keys of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Can he perform a resurrection? Can he grant salvation?

Could St. Peter?

I don't think so. I have always thought he was more like a desk clerk as oppose to hotel management, but I could be wrong.

[_asbestosman]

But, it is a fundamental belief of the Church that Gordon B. Hinckley is the only man on earth who holds all of the keys of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Can he perform a resurrection? Can he grant salvation?

Could St. Peter?

I don't think so. I have always thought he was more like a desk clerk as oppose to hotel management, but I could be wrong.

I thought he was more like a janitor. He has all the keys so he can clean up everyone's messes.

[_Mister Scratch]

I am not going to continue the "yes you are...no I'm not...yes you are...no I'm not" exchang.

Then quit responding to the thread asshat, if that's all you can do.

You are free to go as deep into denial as you think you need, and utterly refuse to be personally accountable and responsible, but that won't change the reality of what I have said. In fact, it again unwittingly illustrates it.

It only displays your inability to understand that perhaps the church isn't what it says it is. Period. People can have problems, but maybe it's the teachings they aren't buying.

If, on the other hand, you want to get into specifics of where you may have done exactly as I have said, and test whether I am right or wrong, then I am open to that. What about you? (Careful, the way you answer this question will unavoidably speak to whether you or I am right about what I have said.)

Oh, damn, that's right.....it's always the person's problems not the church. Just make it a part of your testimony on Fast Sunday. I did quite a bit a self examination. I wanted the church to be true. I lived it, I loved it. Kept trying to believe as I studied and learned more. Sorry, it isn't even close to what it claims to be even though I wanted it to be.....and it wasn't my fault.


Chris <><


PS: Hey Scratch...if you do a little blurb on Brother Wade here, make sure you add his repetitious "It's obviously your fault not the church's problems mantra" in there somehow.

Unfortunately for me and my over-heated keyboard, Dr. Shades has taken over the "Banned from FAIR" blog, and thus Wade Englund resides squarely in Shades' jurisdiction. In fact, Wade was the second entry (if I'm not mistaken) into Shades' blog.

Edited to add: Hey, Wade---would it be fair to say that you've been caught with "eggregious" on your face?

[_harmony]

I think Plutarch is correct in suggesting that many here wish to evade personal responsibility and accountability--to the point of not even honestly acknowledging they are periodic adversaries, or opponents, or foes of the CoJCoLDS (connotations and synonyms for the word "enemy").

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course you agree with Plutarch, Wade. You and he are cut from the same cloth. Willful blindness isn't a virtue, but Plutarch and you have both tried to raise it to that level.

I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separate the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.

I think I understand what you are saying. I am aware of women who incessantly berrate and nag their husbands, gossip and backbite, whine and complain about them, blame their husbands for their woes, rarely if ever have a kind, supportive, or encouraging word to say about them, and then when pressed, will say "sure I love my husband" and "I am not an enemy of my husband", and honestly mean it.

But, as mentioned previously, that is because these "wives" lack the capacity for honest introspection and have a near inpregnable aversion to accepting personal responsibility. Were they to have been subjected to the same kind of treatment by their husbands, they would be the first to cry "abuse" and to accuse their husbands of being an adversary, oppositon, foe, and an enemy. But, for the life of them, they cannot see it in themselves.

I see you, harmony/serenity/WAZing, as being that kind of "wife" to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

With your experience as a husband (zero, from what I can ascertain), I can quite honestly say you don't know anything about marriage, Wade. Come back when you've managed to spend 35 years with the same person. Then and only then will you be able to give me advice about marriage. I've accomplished something you can only dream about. Your credibility when speaking about marriage, or any relationship requiring years of work to maintain, is clearly zero.

Find another analogy. That one doesn't work.