Weird (stupid) Sealing Policies

[_Coggins7]

We bother because it's a good example of the retardation of the belief system. It's stupid, Charity, and you believe it with all your heart, don't you? You kind of have to, really, because Prophets, Seers, and Revelators handed it down to you.

Seth is a graduate of the Richard Dawkins Institute of Comparative Religion. The depth of his analysis here demonstrates that quite conclusively.

[_Tidejwe]

And you can find much better answers for such questions on the MA&D board because they actually know the answers.

LOL! No, they can give the standard answers and not get sanctioned. Charity, your (not so subtle) arrogance never ceases to amaze me. You should know that when an answer is given there that is contradictory to the "acceptable" answers, the person is sanctioned and/or banned. So to you, that means that the allowed answers are the correct ones?

Whatever.

Yes, many of you above listed reasons I have reservations with MA&D. I visited there just before it switched over from "Fairboards" to MA&D, and quit visiting shortly after the switchover. As many on this thread already mentioned, I was fairly disappointed with what I found. Too many closed-minded individuals who resort to the same answer for every single post they make, and every other response tended to completely avoid the subject. I felt like I wasn't learning anything or getting new insight on matters. Although I was personally treated very nicely, I was disappointed in how easily some others were banned, and silenced for things I didn't think they deserved simply because admins or others disagreed with them even if their response was respectful in my opinion...it simply wasn't what the admins wanted to hear so they'd be chastised for it. It felt like Packer was running the site behind the scenes, threatening admins to silence people or be subject to discipline themselves. There were a ridiculous amount of rules (at least at the time) and I was sick of having to be so "CAREFUL" with what I said all the time for fear of being smited for some unspoken rule. I was rather disappointed with many of the admins who I felt were abusive with their power. When I recently heard this group had several people who were also from the MA&D board but with a lot less ridiculousness, I thought I'd come give it a try. I suppose perhaps I may try the MA&D board again some day, but from some of the responses I just read above, it doesn't seem like things have improved much.

[_the road to hana]

And you can find much better answers for such questions on the MA&D board because they actually know the answers.

MADB is a fount of disinformation. I wouldn't consider it any more reliable as a source for answers. For that matter, walking into any local LDS ward and asking straightforward questions can result in a plethora of answers, many of which will be incorrect.

That could be true. That's why you find the knowledgable people and ask them. That's like telling someone that if you ask the person on the street a question about the Constitution of the United States, you are probably going to get some wrong answers. So you go to a teacher of American History and Govenrment. This is not hard, road to hana!

So who gives 100% correct answers all of the time on MADB? Can you direct us to him/her? Perhaps the board should have a disclaimer at the top noting those posters who are always 100% correct in their answers.

MADB operates primarily as a spin zone.

Wrong.

Goodness, Charity. Have you read any of Julie's posts recently? Right now they're trying to spin Mike Huckabee into public enemy #1.

Frankly, Charity, in a church that has little to no official doctrine, it's pretty hard for anyone to come up with official answers.

Wrong again. I'm glad you didn't make another comment or you wil be out on three strikes. I guess you just don't know official doctrine when you see it.

Could you point out where that official doctrine is, exactly? We'd all be much obliged. While you're at it, you might want to point Mitt Romney in its direction.

[_Coggins7]

Well that's politics, not official Gospel doctrine. And Huckabee has made some statements that smack of religious bigotry of the Protestant Fundamentalist kind, so all fair...

[_Coggins7]

Could you point out where that official doctrine is, exactly? We'd all be much obliged. While you're at it, you might want to point Mitt Romney in its direction.

Would you like to talk about what is or is not official doctrine, or Mitt Romney (given that Romney is not running for President of the Church but President of the United States)?

[_the road to hana]

Well that's politics, not official Gospel doctrine. And Huckabee has made some statements that smack of religious bigotry of the Protestant Fundamentalist kind, so all fair...

You might consider it fair (pun intended), but it's still spin.

Read any of Julie's posts lately? If someone can't come up with a current, living prophet stating something, in her view it's not doctrine. She pretty much sets what is or is not doctrine over there.

[_the road to hana]

Could you point out where that official doctrine is, exactly? We'd all be much obliged. While you're at it, you might want to point Mitt Romney in its direction.

Would you like to talk about what is or is not official doctrine, or Mitt Romney (given that Romney is not running for President of the Church but President of the United States)?

The former governor of Massachusetts has had to be corrected publicly more than once recently by a spokesperson of the LDS Church regarding his own misstatements of LDS doctrine. If he only could be pointed in the direction of that veritable fountain of doctrinal LDS truth that is MADB, perhaps that could be avoided.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well that's politics, not official Gospel doctrine. And Huckabee has made some statements that smack of religious bigotry of the Protestant Fundamentalist kind, so all fair...

You might consider it fair (pun intended), but it's still spin.

Read any of Julie's posts lately? If someone can't come up with a current, living prophet stating something, in her view it's not doctrine. She pretty much sets what is or is not doctrine over there.

Good point. juliann has really laid claim to this particular Mopologetic gambit of clinging desperately to the notion of "continuing revelation," despite the fact that GBH has said things that indicate that very little---if any at all---"continuing revelation" is forthcoming. Another popular spin technique of hers is the "we don't know what's going to happen!" excuse, which she uses to smooth over qualms about polygamy in the CK.

Would you like to talk about what is or is not official doctrine, or Mitt Romney (given that Romney is not running for President of the Church but President of the United States)?

Romney has demonstrated pretty clearly that, from a political standpoint, he is embarrassed about many aspects of the Church. I was listening to an interview with him on NPR not too long ago, and poor Mitt blew his lid when the interviewer asked him if he believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. And no: Romney never did answer the question.

[_Coggins7]

You might consider it fair (pun intended), but it's still spin.

Read any of Julie's posts lately? If someone can't come up with a current, living prophet stating something, in her view it's not doctrine. She pretty much sets what is or is not doctrine over there.

1. Its opinion from Mormon culture and perspective on religous bigotry aimed that Mormons. Call it spin if you like. Its opinion and analysis.

2. Are we discussing whether or not the people at MAD are final arbiters of what is official doctrine? If so, we can dispense with that now because, in a public sense, that authority and right belongs to the General Authorities, and in particular, the Prophet.

MAD is a place where some very knowledgeable people give answers to questions that are, most certainly, authoritative much of the time. Its also a place for theory, speculation, and debate, and if one confuses the two, a distored perspective can arise.

[_the road to hana]

2. Are we discussing whether or not the people at MAD are final arbiters of what is official doctrine? If so, we can dispense with that now because, in a public sense, that authority and right belongs to the General Authorities, and in particular, the Prophet.

Mr. "I don't know that we teach that?"

MAD is a place where some very knowledgeable people give answers to questions that are, most certainly, authoritative much of the time.

Could you point us in the direction of those posters at MADB who give 100% authoritative answers to doctrinal questions regarding things LDS?