The Folk Prophet

Tone, in my opinion, can very often be read in the way words are put together. But not always. There are many times that I see tone taken wrongly, or have had my tone taken wrongly, or have taken other's tones wrongly. I think some go about with chips on their shoulders, actually, and take offense often where it is not meant. However, there are other times where people are clearly stating something in a way that is meant to be less than civil. Sometimes, you call them on it, and they deny it. That's when I disengage. I will call people on lack of civility, but if they don't own up to it, what good does it do to continue. Disengaging can be hard, however. Pride rears it's ugly head in the anonymity of forum-land even easier than it does in person. People say things in forums that they would never, ever say in person. I say that's a check point we could all follow. Would I say this to their face using these words, etc...?

You are the paramount example of civility in these forums PC.

Disagreement does not need to equate to incivility though. There are those those on the forum that I disagree with fairly consistently, but the discourse remains entirely civil.

Habits take time to break. Long term practice of positive thought patterns can yield results. So those things you are doing, stick with them diligently. Beyond that, the Spirit is the answer. Having the Spirit with you constantly will bring you peace. This takes effort and constant struggle. The Spirit attends when we obey, including prayer, diligent scripture study, etc, but also takes effort to listen and look for it constantly. That is another thing that we can practice, I believe, into a long term habit.

I agree. I see no reason to cook with wine. I would not have it, or any form of alcohol, in my home. That's my take.

"...a missionary opportunity? " <== note the . That means it was a joke. :)

Suggested workplace comment to open up opportunity: "So I was outside taking care of my deseret and thinking about Kolob, and I found myself really wishing I owned a Urim and Thummim." No?

You don't think that would open up a missionary opportunity?

Oh...Kolob. And Kokaubeam.

I'd think more phrases than words. We have lots of phrases exclusive to Mormonism. That's easy to come up with a list (baptism for the dead, bear your testimony, fast and testimony meeting, word of wisdom, book of mormon, every member a missionary, etc., etc.,). Words though... Hmm. Proper names. Uh... Gazelem? Deseret? Curelom? Cumon?

It's always difficult for me to apologize when I know I'm not actually being uncivil or harsh...but I usually try to swallow my pride and apologize anyway...usually.... :) Well...that's probably a lie. Not usually. Sometimes. So...taking a guess... Loudmouth?

I think it's up and down for me. Sometimes I'm content. Sometimes I'm truly happy. Truly happy almost always comes after spiritual things. I was truly happy after most of the Conference sessions, for example. I'm truly happy leaving the temple. I do wish I could hang onto the truly happy thing more consistently.

I am very, very finicky about shows with nudity, but it comes from a different perspective entirely. I very, very much enjoy nudity...therefore I avoid it like the plague!! I cannot be casual about it an any regard. I used to treat it less like it was a big deal, but have learned that treating it that way was lying to myself. As a side note: I am specifically referring to female nudity as to the above reason. However, I would also avoid anything with male nudity, because in spite of the fact that I would not enjoy it, I still think it's realistically going to drive the spirit out. Sacred things being treated casually...and all that.

My experience in this forum has been an interesting one. In many other forums you don't really expect civility. By and large I've learned to stay off other forums accordingly. Civility is moderated on some, of course, and that helps. But even moderation cannot ensure complete civility, because it is it somewhat subjective. I have had many experiences on this forum where I'm conversing along and out of nowhere someone comes in and, from my perspective, spews incivility into the proceedings. When and if I engage (which, I must admit, it's hard not to), the incivility surmounts, building on itself and the conversation degrades quickly. Here's the thing though -- when I do engage, it often comes out that the other party thought me uncivil in the first place, in spite of the fact that I may have felt the conversation was moving along nicely and quite civil. It also often seems to be someone interjecting incivility, rather than a response by someone I have been engaged with (not always, of course). The phenomenon is fascinating. It's like a traffic jam - a natural result of too many cars on the road, rather than an idiot driver (though many times it could be an idiot driver's fault too). Sometimes it seems like the incivility is no one's fault either, after all is said and explained, but just the natural, unavoidable result of foruming (that's a word, right?) And, of course, sometimes it's directly someone's fault. :) I thought it would be interesting to discuss methods we use to remain civil. (Or perhaps, discuss how we fail to do so at times). Civility facilitates communication, but more importantly, in a gospel themed forum, it behooves us all to strive for Christ-like behavior. And whereas sometimes the failure to be Christ-like is my own fault, sometimes I am making my best effort and still manage to offend. Clearly I have things to learn, as we all do. So I thought a discussion to that end would be useful. So the question: What methods do you use in your interactions on this forum to keep your discourse civil?

What about eloquent bluntness?

One of the things about this sort of thinking (faith, grace, Holy Spirit annointing, etc., causing our good works to be effective and works of any sort being a gift of the Holy spirit) is that, to me, it diminishes the idea of agency and choice. I admit that I may not fully understand the perspective, not being raised in the non-LDS Christian tradition, but it seems to me that it implies that if you choose to accept Jesus then you will be made a better person and act accordingly, rather than the idea that by choosing to be a better persona and act accordingly you are accepting Jesus. My thinking is that both are true and that the non-LDS Christian p.o.v. is missing the second half. We become more like Christ by choosing to act like Christ. We also become more like Christ by being filled with His grace. Both are important to our coming unto him. And I see too many examples of those who claim to be saved but then go about their lives without any Christlike behavior whatsoever. There's something missing there, in my opinion. What's missing, I think, is their choosing to act (works) to actually become more like Christ. We are who we choose to be, as well as who we are graced to be. That's my thinking on it at least.

Interesting way to put it. Yeah...maybe. Faith required works to be faith. So in that sense, yeah...not alone.

Apparently you assumed I was. You telling me to get a grip was undoubtedly so. Can you really not understand that coming into the middle of other's conversing and essentially saying "This is a stupid conversation" might be taken as offensive? Conversely, I can certainly understand that my response to you could have been taken as offensive. I tried to offset the potential "rude" nature of it with the smiley emoticon. Apparently you didn't take the tone. So be it. I apologize for being rude. But, honestly, if you find it stupid, why are you joining in?

This thinking is right in line with Marcos A. Aidukaitis's Conference talk.

No need for rudeness.

I absolutely agree with you that mostly Christians and LDS tend to talk past each other. I think what you've gleaned from some LDS folk is somewhat accurate, and somewhat mistake...if that's even possible. :) I know you are aware from some other posts that we (LDS) have variable understandings of what salvation is. Salvation is not a single state. Yes, any kingdom of salvation is just that...a kingdom of salvation...in that even in the Telestial state we are saved from something. And that is by the grace of the Savior. However, their is only one state of FULL salvation. And that, too, we believe is given by the grace of Jesus. Anyone who argues that we are not saved by Grace (and claims to believe in the Bible) has no legs to stand on. We are saved by Grace. That is given. To simplify the discussion, let's refer to "saved" as full salvation (Celestial Kingdom) concerning the LDS p.o.v. LDS folk believe (or should believe, at least, if they understand) that we are saved by Grace after all we can do, per the Bible. That does not, in any way, mean that we earned our own salvation or that grace was not 100% the means of that salvation. How does that work. It's simple really. Christ set the standard whereby He would give us His grace. That standard is to follow Him and to keep His commandments. Where the Christian world and LDS talk past each other a bit is in the idea of what it means to accept Christ. We (LDS) contend that if you don't follow His commandments, you haven't accepted Him, in spite of what one claims. The need to do as Christ has asked us to do is paramount. But doing that has no bearing on earning a thing. For our works are, as you pointed out, nothing but filthy rags. We cannot pay for treasure with filthy rags. Regardless, the Savior has asked us to give those filthy rags to him, and that is the condition He gave us for His grace.

I always find it humorous when someone states a discussion to be stupid and then proceeds to discuss it. :) If you don't find it useful to discuss, don't discuss it. Others may find it useful. No reason to criticize that.

What you're talking about is authority, and in that regard, to think otherwise does boggle the mind. But the term "keys" are most often related to priesthood offices and are a specific term to such. Whereas we can (and sometimes do and have) use the word "keys" interchangeably with authority, it is not necessarily inaccurate to say parents have keys to their take care of their home...but realistically, they have those same "keys" regardless of priesthood. By virtue of having a child together they have that authority. The priesthood is not necessary for them to have that authority. Tell me what a home with an ordained priesthood male can do that a home without cannot? Heal the sick? No. Miracles happen by faith, and the prayer of a single mother is as valid in faith to healing the sick as a priesthood blessing. Revelation? Guidance from the Lord? All of these things come by the Spirit and by faith. So what "keys" are we talking about in the home that fathers (and mothers) have by virtue of the priesthood? Generally speaking, when talking about priesthood keys, almost every reference I've read, speaks of them in terms of specific offices in the priesthood, and that cannot be applied to home. And usage of the word in that regard is perfectly reasonable without mind-boggling. So I both agree with you and disagree.:)

Technically speaking, LDS teachings do teach that we are saved by faith alone. But faith without works is dead, so...no works indicates no faith. Works are highly integral to our salvation because they are the manifestation of our works. To claim faith in Jesus, and then not to follow him (obey his commandments), puts a lie to the claimed faith.

Well, yeah....if that's what they do and the reason they do it, then I give them the benefit of the doubt too. I'm just skeptical that that's really a policy. That's all I'm saying.