How members are expected to behave in cyberspace interaction

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

Every time I see a Mormon citing 3 Nephi 11:29 I want to run away and scream.

Really? Why?

Because 99% of the time it is mainly used as a tool to end debate. As in don't contend, follow the brethren, case closed.

I see nothing wrong with reasonable and rational debate. Mean spirited nastiness that I often see here from some LDS defenders and others has no place.

Do you think it does?

Every time I see a Mormon saying to be more Christ like I want to run away and scream.

Well sorry but really too bad for you.

No really.

Well yes really.

Being Christ like in today's context essentially means to act like a well behaved middle class American.

No I don't think so.I think it means more than that and rising to a higher standard.

Problem: Jesus wasn't a well behaved middle class American.

Well duh! But you are portraying something I never intended by my post no argued.

It pisses me off

Sorry about that.

because it almost never means try and figure out who Jesus was, it's a way of imputing our values onto Jesus himself.

I think very few middle class Americans live the way Jesus taught. You know that thing about how men can know we are his disciples, that new commandment thing....love one another. That and the Sermon on the Mount seem to he a higher law. How many middle class Americans behave the way Jesus says to behave in the Sermon on the Mount?

And just so you know, I cringe just as bad when I hear Christians say the same thing.

Well I am happy this minor wrath is not aimed at poor benighted LDSers only.

Look I know Jesus rebuked some at times and had some tough teachings.

]

Then you agree with me, and case closed.

No you did not read on.

But He was Jesus. He was the Son of God at least according to the New Testament. That means he knew the hearts and minds of those he spoke sharply too. Still his message was one of love.

Here's the problem Jason, if he was so wholly different than everyone else, i.e. he can rebuke because he's super Jesus and knows all hearts and minds, then he can't be an example.

I disagree. Can you walk on water? Can you raise the dead? Don't you think he was different?

Besides, I think you over state this angry contentious Jesus. I think those instances were limited. I can think of the temple, some rebukes of his apostles a few time, his condemnation of the Jewish leaders, the temple events and that is it. What am I missing.

If Mormons really think that Jesus had a veil put over his mind in the same way as we all do, then he had no special abilities to mind read.

I believe that Jesus knew who he was at least by the time he started his ministry if not earlier (thinking of the time at the temple when he was 12). I do am not sure LDS teachings say he had a veil like us.

Otherwise, he's super Jesus and everything he does and says has to be interpreted as beyond our ability and comprehension, which means you and I have as much ability to follow his example as a hamster does mine.

I think following his teachings is really hard if not nigh impossible in total for everyone. But it is the standard I thought Christians were to strive for.

I think you need to re read the Sermon on the Mount.

[_Aristotle Smith]

And I can tell you a bit about my LDS 16 year old daughter's view of the over the top piety and false sanctimony she sees at her friends EV Church. She is an active Mormon and cannot really stomach all the "God is Great,He is so awesome, He is so wonderful" and so on.

Did I claim somewhere that other groups don't have similar problems?

Some Mormons can be that way. So can many Born again EV types I know. Even more so. I could tell you about the local Baptist Ministers wife and how she is so sickly sweet to us and my daughter who took piano lessons from her you almost want to spit. At the same time she is quite happy to host anti Mormons when they come to town.

Yes, and you are making my point. The SBC is dying, really fast. Entire congregations who are technically still part of the SBC are refusing to even identify as "Baptist." Why? Because they know that they SBC has, rightly or wrongly, been identified with a certain type of believer, and they don't want to be associated with those types. But even in real terms, people are exiting the SBC completely. I've seen projections estimating that the SBC will be down to 50% membership within a generation.

I think they do trust the members on this. Else why encourage it and promote it and give tools to do it?

What tools are they giving them? And I don't think they trust them for the most part to get it right. Can wards and stakes set up their own websites and advertise? No. Do they trust people to go out and present the message as taught? No, they have to make sure they act a certain way. Are they empowering the leadership on the ground (bishops, relief society presidents, ward missionary leaders) to share the message as they see fit, or are they trying to channel public interaction through public affairs committees?

[_Jason Bourne]

I get annoyed

Well I seem to be annoying a lot of people on this thread.

when some Mormons try to put their fake behavior into perspective by bringing up Evangelical behavior.

I did this because I viewed Aristotle comments as rather petty and irrelevant really to the discussion. I brought it up because over the top piety can be demonstrated by almost anyone who is or wants to appear very devote.

Well, I'm no fan of Evangelical culture, but I'd say you lose on this count as well.

Well based on my experience I don't think so. But I would agree with you when I hear any LDS women leaders speak from general conference. Much to gooey for me.

Evangelicals strike me as more genuine than Mormons, and for one reason that should be obvious:

Evangelicals think they are already saved, and yet they act the way they do anyway. Why? Because they're more likely to be genuine.

I am not sure I can agree with the connection.

Mormons on the other hand - in my experience anyway - they are fans of setting goals and loading up their Franklin planner with service projects and things of that sort. You're never doing enough, especially when you think you are, etc. Work, work, work, work, and then when you think you've done enough, go work some more. They do this because theirs is a works-based path towards salvation, and they love to cite the relevant scriptures that appear to support this mentality. But while their works produce much good for society, they're really doing this for themselves. I cannot count the number of times I thanked a Mormon or small group of Mormons for helping my granny cut her grass, or for bringing over food when our entire family was sick, or (pick a service project), only to hear them respond with something like, "Don't thank me, I need the blessings."

Yes this can be annoying. That does not mean the person is not genuine.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I see nothing wrong with reasonable and rational debate. Mean spirited nastiness that I often see here from some LDS defenders and others has no place.

Do you think it does?

No nastiness has no place, but I think spirited debate does. I don't think the GAs want much of either.

I think following his teachings is really hard if not nigh impossible in total for everyone. But it is the standard I thought Christians were to strive for.

I think you need to re read the Sermon on the Mount.

Jason, Jesus' message does not reduce to the sermon on the mount. If it did, he would have stopped there and never said or did anything else. I have read the Sermon on the Mount many times. To be honest, the more I contextualize it in the total of Jesus' message, the less I think it means to be a well behaved middle class American.

If you really think that what is needed is a flat and literal reading of the Sermon on the Mount, then the LDS church stands condemned for allowing divorce for any reason other than adultery. Don't believe me? It's in black and white in Matt 5:31-32. I don't condemn the LDS church for allowing divorce, do you?

[_Aristotle Smith]

Last comment on this thread, I promise.

I think the real problem for me is that I actually feel a bit sorry for the nasty defenders of the LDS faith. They desperately want to defend their tribe, people, and beliefs. The problem is that once people see the whole story, it's pretty hard to defend. I mean, how are you supposed to go about defending sleeping with teenage girls when you are already married?

If you just keep your composure and answer that with your testimony and kind words, you end you end up looking like a brain washed tool. So, the defenders go on the attack. That's really the only thing you can do when defending the indefensible.

My response to Ballard is that the LDS people don't need yet another lecture on how they are doing it wrong, nor do they need another checklist of things to do. They need something they can defend. Once you are defending the defensible, it's rather easy to act nice and composed.

Ironically, Ballard, as an apostle could give the LDS something defensible and could fix the underlying problem. Instead, the LDS are treated to another round of being told to do it better. I think the LDS people are doing the best they can.

[_Jason Bourne]

And I can tell you a bit about my LDS 16 year old daughter's view of the over the top piety and false sanctimony she sees at her friends EV Church. She is an active Mormon and cannot really stomach all the "God is Great,He is so awesome, He is so wonderful" and so on.

Did I claim somewhere that other groups don't have similar problems?

You said Mormons are fake. I simply pointed our that other groups can be just a fake as you seem to think Mormons are.

Some Mormons can be that way. So can many Born again EV types I know. Even more so. I could tell you about the local Baptist Ministers wife and how she is so sickly sweet to us and my daughter who took piano lessons from her you almost want to spit. At the same time she is quite happy to host anti Mormons when they come to town.

Yes, and you are making my point. The SBC is dying, really fast. Entire congregations who are technically still part of the SBC are refusing to even identify as "Baptist." Why? Because they know that they SBC has, rightly or wrongly, been identified with a certain type of believer, and they don't want to be associated with those types. But even in real terms, people are exiting the SBC completely. I've seen projections estimating that the SBC will be down to 50% membership within a generation.

I don't know anything about the status of the SBC.

But I am not sure how all this ties into the fact that I believe discipleship requires a certain type of behavior.

I think they do trust the members on this. Else why encourage it and promote it and give tools to do it?

What tools are they giving them?

Check out Mormon.org if you are interested.

And I don't think they trust them for the most part to get it right.

Ok.

Can wards and stakes set up their own websites and advertise? No

Correct.

Do they trust people to go out and present the message as taught? No, they have to make sure they act a certain way.

You have a problem with the Church encouraging civilty in its members?

This is a new twist on a criticism.

Are they empowering the leadership on the ground (bishops, relief society presidents, ward missionary leaders) to share the message as they see fit, or are they trying to channel public interaction through public affairs committees?

Local public affairs groups are fairly autonomous.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Jason, thanks for the information. I do not know AS affiliation with the LDS Church, but his sentiments seems typical of many of the LDS defenders here and else where; each one claiming some kind of exemption or license to act contrary to what the Church teaches.

just read the WS thread, wherein, the known LDS were more upset and outspoken about people bringing up WS statements than, if at all upset, that WS made such statements and made a mockery of sacred Temple Ordinances. When confronted about whether they supported WS mockery and other statements they danced around issue but never really directly condemned his behaviour but use lame excuse like "only human" or "its the nature of the board".

Thanks again. And I say, Yes, the LDS defenders especially those who consider themselves "professional" at it or aspire to such, have no ground to stand on when they revert to the law of Moses "eye for eye" e.g. SGW, Droopy, Pahoran, WS,

Then there are the other LDS who doggedly promote their own philosophy via the interwebs as LDS Church Doctrine; Bcspace, Mordecia.

[_Jason Bourne]

No nastiness has no place, but I think spirited debate does. I don't think the GAs want much of either.

You could be right. Certainly I am not opposed to rational reasonable debate. The intent of this thread is not to tell LDS defenders to stop defending and debating. But some need to clean up their behavior.

I think following his teachings is really hard if not nigh impossible in total for everyone. But it is the standard I thought Christians were to strive for.

I think you need to re read the Sermon on the Mount.

Jason, Jesus' message does not reduce to the sermon on the mount.

I understand that. But it is not to be set aside either because Jesus rebuked some people a few times.

If it did, he would have stopped there and never said or did anything else.

I am really not a simpleton Aristotle. I understand we need to take the whole picture. I think the whole picture does not encourage a nasty kick butt demeanor. Nor does it meant to be a wimpy pushover.

I have read the Sermon on the Mount many times.

Yes I know this. I was being a bit snarky.

To be honest, the more I contextualize it in the total of Jesus' message, the less I think it means to be a well behaved middle class American.

I have no idea where you think I have that idea. That it your think and not mine.

If you really think that what is needed is a flat and literal reading of the Sermon on the Mount, then the LDS church stands condemned for allowing divorce for any reason other than adultery. Don't believe me? It's in black and white in Matt 5:31-32. I don't condemn the LDS church for allowing divorce, do you?

This is a rabbit trail. I thin you understand my points.

If you disagree go grab your whip and kick some butts.

[_Jason Bourne]

Last comment on this thread, I promise.

I think the real problem for me is that I actually feel a bit sorry for the nasty defenders of the LDS faith. They desperately want to defend their tribe, people, and beliefs. The problem is that once people see the whole story, it's pretty hard to defend. I mean, how are you supposed to go about defending sleeping with teenage girls when you are already married?

If you just keep your composure and answer that with your testimony and kind words, you end you end up looking like a brain washed tool. So, the defenders go on the attack. That's really the only thing you can do when defending the indefensible.

My response to Ballard is that the LDS people don't need yet another lecture on how they are doing it wrong, nor do they need another checklist of things to do. They need something they can defend. Once you are defending the defensible, it's rather easy to act nice and composed.

Ironically, Ballard, as an apostle could give the LDS something defensible and could fix the underlying problem. Instead, the LDS are treated to another round of being told to do it better. I think the LDS people are doing the best they can.

None of this excuses some of the behavior that some LDS defenders exhibit here.

You know who they are.

And I think your summary is over simplified nor as cut and dry as you think. And it really has a bit of hubris in it as well. I think there are LDS defenders who do a fine job and make reasonable defenses even though I rarely agree with them.

Perhaps Ballard over does it with the testimony bit and I can agree with that.

[_Aristotle Smith]

OK, I lied, one more comment to offer a correction and an apology.

Jason,

I think at least part of the misunderstanding has been my fault for writing this line:

Every time I see a Mormon saying to be more Christ like I want to run away and scream.

That was bad form because it unfairly singled out Mormons and didn't explain what I saw as being misleading when people are told to act more like Christ. This statement is more accurate:

Every time I see anyone saying to be more Christ like, when they really mean act in such and such a way (which may or may not have anything to do with acting like Jesus did), I want to run away and scream.

My apologies for writing something that was easily construed as an attack on Mormons. I think that all Christian organizations develop an institutionally approved set of behaviors which become a stand-in for what it means to be "Christ-like." Thus act more "Christ-like" ends up meaning, act more like a Baptist, or act more like an Anglican, or act more like Mormon, etc. I saw Ballard invoking the Mormon approved version of this and reacted against it. I should have chose my words more carefully.