posted
(also, by the flow of posts he certainly seemed to be asking it of me, so I responded)
quote:Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?
I sort of wonder, though, how OSC could be said to be affiliated with all the people who post on a website just because he pays for it (since that's not true for most forum websites -- "the views expressed here are solely the views of . . . " and all that), or how he could be said to sympathize with those positions he clearly opposes in his writings. I don't see any other clauses in that statement, so I await an example of OSC "affiliating" with someone on this forum who fits the criteria, or OSC sympathizing with such a person's precepts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I have lost such and consider it close to the time when Missionaries will be commanded to come back home.
You know, I tend to agree with you that this *will* eventually happen, I just think that the time is still a ways off. I think there is still so much to be done in bringing the gospel to every tongue and people. It hasn't been fulfilled--yet.
Occasional, I do appreciate you explaining your POV. Particularly in regards to the temple recommend interview. I think I understand better why you believe as you do, though it is clear that you and I interpret the statement differently. I imagine that has to do with the fact that isolationism appeals to you while I find it repugnant (at this point, when there is still so much goodness in people in spite of differing belief).
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you pray for the Kingdom of God as eagerly if it weren't presumably predicated on the destruction of those with whom you disagree?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, he was responding to me saying I was at a loss and didn't know what he was referring to. He was specifically answering my question. Sorry it was confusing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD, yes. Your comment suggests that I am more about Vengence than Love of God. You cannot see into my heart so I can't make you believe what I say is what I mean. For what it is worth, I would rather be born in Zion that see it come to fruitation.
Doctrinally speaking, I and those who believe in righteousness will suffer long and hard before sinners. Read Folk of the Fringe for a literary treatment of the subject.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional -- it seems that you'd rather labor to help damn people than to help save them. It makes me sad.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, to be clear, Occasional, you admit to "affiliat[ing] with [a] group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" by participating at Hatrack?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that Zion would have no problem whatsoever embracing someone like Tom. I happen to really love and "ressonate" with Card's essays about Zion.
In other words, I think the noble and just of the earth will be spared God's vengance and be friendly with Zion even if they are not full participators in it because of difference in belief.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what threshold of differences you have for people worthy of living there. I believe the differences will be doctrinal more than moral.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*still wondering how owning these forums constitutes "affiliation" or "sympathizing", any more than owning a barber shop would*
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC pays for it, and therefore supports it. He has the power to allow or not allow particular people to come and post. A Barbar shop doesn't always have that ability. But, if you have as much respect as you say you do, that particular comment you should try and avoid commenting on if you are not LDS. I only used it as beverly asked about it. Perhaps I should have just e-mailed her.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The owner pays for a barber shop as well, and people go in there and talk about whatever as well.
Also, it is financial support you're talking to. Has anyone who has given money to either political party (both having as parts of their platforms at times things counter to Mormon beliefs) been in violation? In most considerations, financial support is not considered affiliation or sympathizing.
And no, if you wish to stop talking about it I'll stop responding, but as long as you expect to be able to have your word in, I expect to be able to have my word in response. I may also choose to stop, but I feel in no way compelled to do so, particularly when you are actively discussing in a public place.
Don't forget to check out those right wing blogs and ask about forums.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Its worth noting that OSC has pretty firmly stated, at least in my readings of his posts, that these forums exist to support the fanbase for his works, not because he wants there to be a place for people to discuss, making them even more like the barber shop, where discussion is incidental to the "purpose" of the place).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the question of what constitutes "affiliation" is not a problem. What I am offended by is your snarkiness about the quote itself -- even if directed at me.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My snarkiness is not about the quote itself, its about your use of it.
And I happen to think you're wrong regarding affiliation, considering there seem to be several temple-recommend carrying mormons who disagree with you. If it were not a problem, they wouldn't be.
(edit: I believe I've seen mentioned that the Mormons in question have been to temple, but I couldn't point to posts saying that, so I could be wrong, of course. It is also the impression I've gotten seeing the interaction in this thread).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit: Post removed because I'm afraid that I said that out of anger or frustration -- never a good frame of mind to be in if you want to say something uncomfortable to your listener.
quote:I submit that Hatrack represents for me the kind of people that are "past feeling" and Spiritually unrecoverable.
Funny, I thought it was doctrine that human beings don't know when someone is 'Spiritually unrecoverable'. I thought that we couldn't be sure if an indivudual had heard the Spirit, had their last chance, because that's not the sort of thing people know about other individuals.
You're right. You're no prophet, you're no authority. So you know what, Occasional? Stop acting like one. You're no authority. You're just a guy.
And you know what, I think it's pretty outrageous that you're calling OSC evil. That's what you're doing. He's permitting evil-and not just garden variety evil, but Garden variety evil, if you will, Evil that's a pretty direct affront to G-d. And you've criticized Tom Davidson before, too. Hypocrite.
And what does it say about you, Occasional, that you're still around this evil, damning place?
quote:Nauvoo is NOT exactly what I want. Rather, I am looking for a group that is overwhelmingly Conservative in viewpoints and positions, regardless of disagreements. In other words, a place where 1 and out 5 posters were vehemently anti-gay (just as an example) rather than here where it is the opposite.
I have asked time and time again if anyone knows of Conservative Forums and not eve ONE has been listed. I promise you all that if I found at least one of them to my liking I would leave this place and NEVER come back. You can take that as a blood oath.
Bullshit. Are you so inept, so stupid, that you cannot possibly find a home for yourself without the aid of such hopelessly evil people like us?
'Blood oath', indeed. How pathetically overdramatic.
quote:TomD, yes. Your comment suggests that I am more about Vengence than Love of God. You cannot see into my heart so I can't make you believe what I say is what I mean. For what it is worth, I would rather be born in Zion that see it come to fruitation.
And yet you don't hesitate to make such judgements about others.
What are you doing here? You don't speak for G-d, OSC, LDS members or the Church as a whole, conservatives, or Christians. But man, you never stop speaking for them. Can't you just get lost? You're lying when you say you can't find a forum of like-minded people, because it's easy. Go there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm new. I don't have a lot of time on this board. But I have to say I think "unrecoverable" is a rather harsh word to use toward people who seem, by and large, to be just average people. And pretty nice ones. I admit there is a wide variation of beliefs here. Not everyone agrees. But this is hardly a den of internet iniquity. And the more we can talk to each other, laugh together, cry together, even sometimes argue, the better understanding we have of each other.
And that's all I'm saying on this thread.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: More and more ungodliness/unnatraulness in our society means it is getting closer to going the way of all great nations before: it will die.
I've got to admit that I find the LDS position that America's current standing in the world is a consequence of its godliness to be absolutely fascinating.
Mormons absolutely believe this. It has been said (I don't know by who) that the LDS church could not have been created on any other nation. Then again, I've heard it said (by Hugh Nibley, very smart Mormon scholar who many Mormons dislike) that the opposite is true, that anywhere else LDS church would have been unmolested. But in America, things were just right. That is the argument for both sides anyway.
Still, our very own Book of Mormon teaches that as long as the people in America value righteousness (not just go to church, but good values) then the nation will never be defeated by an invading army.
quote:Implying that affiliating on this forum is grounds for not going to the temple? I will try to be civil. Are you a bishop? You know, even bishops only have authority over *their* flock. Are you a stake president? Again, their authority is very small. You are assuming an authority that is reserved for the prophet of the world by even telling us none of us are worthy to go to the temple, which you have done by saying that this forum is a group of people who's teachings are against the church.
To be fair, I don't think Occasional did this. He explained why *he* feels uncomfortable being here and why he wouldn't run a forum the way OSC does. The difference is subtle, but the difference matters, to me.
We all have to decide how we interpret our own beliefs and convictions, and for Occasional, this is it.
I do think that as LDS we need to be careful not to "tell" each other how to live the gospel. When we share our opinions on how we think, it can feel like we are telling each other how to live when that is not our intent.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on what that question quoted earlier means. Affilliation means being a member of and giving monetary support to any group that purposefully seeks to oppose the Church. As for sympathization, it's one thing to believe abortion is okay. It's another thing to actually have an abortion (That's an example, but one that will prevent worthiness to enter the temple). Owning or using a forum where people exercise their right to voice their opinions will never make someone unworthy to enter the temple. If this forum's purpose was to spread Nazi propaganda (For example), that would be another thing. But this is an open forum. So quit squabling over who's worthy to enter the temple. No one here has a right to do that for anyone but themselves, and I honestly take offence that people are discussing such a matter.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for sympathization, it's one thing to believe abortion is okay.
An aside, the LDS church allows for abortion in certain circumstances. Though allowing isn't the same as condoning. You won't ever hear church authority say, "Yes, you *should* get an abortion in your case."
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: OSC pays for it, and therefore supports it. He has the power to allow or not allow particular people to come and post. A Barbar shop doesn't always have that ability. But, if you have as much respect as you say you do, that particular comment you should try and avoid commenting on if you are not LDS.
posted
One of the most uncomfortable things about religious discussions is when people choose to share the most seriously exclusionary parts of their church's doctrine. These are the parts that say:
"We're right and everyone else is wrong."
and
"We believe that we're the only ones who will experience salvation (or in some cases FULL salvation or THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF salvation)."
I can see a place and time for discussing such matters, perhaps in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect.
But frankly, I do think it's bad form to discuss it here at Hatrack. For one thing, it can only lead to a rancorous argument in which people whose churches have such doctrines hurl claims at each other about how they know they are right and all others are wrong...
Secondly, if the "Card's living room" model is to hold any sway at all with us and dictate how we behave here, I think we would do well to stay as far from such discussions as we can in deference to our host and his family.
I don't need to know who here believes I and my family aren't going to achieve salvation. The only thing that knowledge can do is change my opinion of you, not my opinion of God or my faith.
It's not my place to call certain topics off limits. If our janitor and our hosts don't stop it, that's their call.
It has occurred to me, however, that the polite thing to do would be to impose a few limits on ourselves. And one such limit, seems to me, would be stop short of deliberately posting things that assert one's faith as one true and only faith, or to inform others of your views on their chances for salvation.
Finally, and this is the part specific to Occassional here: I'm not sure if "blood oath" holds a special meaning in your vernacular, but in the common usage it expresses a willingness to shed blood (yours and that of others) should your statement be proved false.
If that is the sense in which you meant it, Occassional, I simply ask that you retract your oath.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And one such limit, seems to me, would be stop short of deliberately posting things that assert one's faith as one true and only faith, or to inform others of your views on their chances for salvation.
I see one problem here, which is that I can't even say "I'm an atheist" if I want to stick strictly to your proposed limit. The implication of atheism is that either I'm missing something or practically everyone else is at least somewhat delusional. I agree that it would be rude to say the latter in so few words even if I thought it was true, but saying "I'm an atheist" does, to a certain extent, imply it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I did not intend such a harsh meaning behind my oath. In today's society where such a violent meaning is in fact illegal, I simply implied where people cut their hands and shake. In fact, in retrospect, such oaths are against my religion and therefore was said in the heat of the moment beyond my usual heat exchanges. I repent of such a drastic statement, although I will hold to it as a promise in less spectacular terms.
posted
I've spent the day ruminating, Occasional, on WHY you spend time here with the Gentiles beyond redemption, the damned. I've come to the conclusion you must like warning the lds here of their danger. Or maybe to bring the damned to their senses? I suggest you start a thread, inform us of all that needs to be said, and THEN leave, after you've picked out which of those conservative sites will welcome you in the best. I wish you luck. Maybe I'll pray for you.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually answered that question on the other side Theaca. So, I will repeat it here. 1) I like OSC and his opinions. As such, I expected those who were here to be representative of those opinions, but found the opposite. 2) I kept thinking things would change and that I could make a difference. Obviously I was wrong.
And, I will concede one good thing about Hatrack that I can't say about anywhere else I have tried so far. There have been some terrific discussion topics here, even if I find the discussions beyond the pale of my tolerance levels.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Still, our very own Book of Mormon teaches that as long as the people in America value righteousness (not just go to church, but good values) then the nation will never be defeated by an invading army.
I guess as long as righteousness is covered by a multi-billion dollar defense budget.... How's that go? God is always on the side of he who has the biggest guns? Something like that. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I kept thinking things would change and that I could make a difference. Obviously I was wrong.
Of course you cannot make a difference -- you don't even try to connect to people. You don't want to bother understanding others, but you expect others to not only understand you, but to see the light and agree with you.
Humans just don't work that way.
As Thomas Monsen said "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." You have shown exactly how much you care for the human beings on this forum.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My make a difference is different from your make a difference. I am not talking about changing hearts and minds. I am talking about completely changing the dynamics of Hatrack. A call for metaphorical violent revolution! Alas, there was too much concentrated power in a particular segment of Hatrack for such possibility.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*frown* A certain segment? So most people here are just like you? Odd, because I hardly ever see anyone acting the way you do.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, I had hoped there were more people like me lurking in the corners ready to take over and change this place. Particularly since OSC seems a heck of a lot more Conservative than most posters. What I found was that there WEREN'T more people like me, or aren't who are willing to participate.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occ, the thing is, a lot of us do agree with you... to a point. But the way you come across makes us so uncomfortable that we hesitate to take up the banner with you. You are not the only person this happens with, and it isn't just on the conservative side of things either. I've seen it happen on both sides of various issues.
When someone comes across as not caring about what the other side thinks, they aren't going to get a lot of support from like-minded people. At least, not here on Hatrack where people tend to want to reach mutual understanding. On other forums where people don't care about coming across as combative, it isn't such a problem.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are the statistics gathered from another post about Gay Marriage that was about as long as this one.
Independant/Undecided 4 people
Liberal 26 people
Conservative 11
I tried to be as fair as possible with my picking. I gathered that those for gay-marriage are liberal and against Conservative. There were at least 3 newcomer/inconsistant posters for each side. That is 2 to 1 odds. However, I did not survey how many posts were liberal vs conservative, although the amount seemed to be 3 to 1 or higher liberal. My point is that statistically there isn't a lot of conservatives here. Although "a lot" can be a subjective numeration.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, on this particular issue it may be that the conservatives are less likely to talk about it because their reasoning is religion-based and cannot be "proved" in fact. There is, therefore, little point in discussing it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it is likely that there is reasons that are not religion based that would show that SSM is not a good idea. However, I think that most scientists and sociologists are biased against the idea and tend to discount results that would indicate that idea. I'm not claiming "grand conspiracy", but rather pointing out that existing political biases do tend to skew results.
I would agree completely that for most conservatives, our reasoning is highly influenced by our religious beliefs, which aren't useful when discussing issues with others who don't share the same beliefs. It makes me feel like we are talking past each other, and I usually end up dropping these discussions - they don't have the tools to convince me, and I don't have the tools to convince them. Gets rather pointless after awhile, no matter how intelligent the participants are on both sides.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) You expected to become an instant leader by posting inflammatory rhetoric.
2) You don't want to hear opinions other than your own.
3) You are being inconsistent in how many others like you would need to be here before you would say that the place is "good." First you said there's no-one like you. Now, you've identified at least 11 conservatives in a thread where there's obvious reasons for many conservatives not to post (i.e., it turns into a defense of religion thread).
As to #1, mph has said it far better than I can how your style impeded your progress here to date.
As to #2, if you don't hear opinions different from your own, you will not know if you're a leader either. And why is that constant agreement so important? Will you and your like-minded discussants sit around zinging imaginary opponents and then slapping each other on the back going "you know, you're right!" Or correcting each others minor departures from some imagined Conservative "platform?"
As to #3, real leaders work with what they have and build from there. People here listen to each other's opinions and value them, no matter what differences in political ideology they start from. You've as much as told us that you think that's a sign of the Apocalypse and near as I can tell, you weren't joking when you said it.
That's not exactly going to "build" anything, and I'm not surprised that people haven't rallied to you if your posts hide that sort of judgement.
Thankfully, God is my judge. God is both wiser and more merciful than you have shown yourself to be. I prefer God's judgement.
SPECIAL TO TWINKY: I think the mere act of stating what belief group one self-identifies with is never a problem. I know plenty of atheists who sit in bemused silence when religious discussions stray into matters of faith (i.e., without proof). I know some that respectfully ask for proof. I know very few who just blurt out "well, you're all a bunch of sadly deluded nincompoops." Suspecting you think that of us, and having you shove it in our faces are two very different things.
Same with any of the religious folks. Knowing which ones of you believe the rest are deluded and therefore damned and having you insist on telling us at every turn are two VERY different things.
The one allows discussion to continue. The latter, at least for me, ends it in hurry.
Hey Occ: Maybe that's it! Do you really want to have discussions? You said you liked the topics, but never the content of the discussions. See, thing is, many of us like the discussions. Who are you to say we're all wrong to enjoy them? Maybe you just don't like conversation. At any rate, I'll keep my own counsel on what I enjoy.
I hope you find a site you like better soon.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
