Defending the Gospel

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

 i can't agree with most of what you've enumerated -

Too bad. 2 + 2 are still 4.

 

Edit: Get it? "Enumerate"? 2 and 2.........

....nevermind.

Edited November 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[lostinwater]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Too bad. 2 + 2 are still 4.

Not falling for it.  You are too nice to argue with.   

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, zil said:

Uh huh.  Somehow images of Harrison Ford don't appear in my head when I read your posts...  Just sayin'.

How about this then?

[The Folk Prophet]

22 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i can't agree with most of what you've enumerated 

On a serious note: Which do you disagree with? (Actually enumerating this time for ease of response).

1. Protection.
2. The plan of salvation including all the means therein where we may return to our Father in Heaven and become like him.
3. Kindness and compassion are virtues to be applied when appropriate. They are not the gospel.
4. By "all that" I expect you mean virtues that we typically call Christlike behavior. Yes. All that plus the above.
5. If I were going to narrow it down I'd say it comes down to obedience and repentance made possible by the Atonement of Christ. But all that above falls within these primary principles.
6. Truth is eternal. God is all knowing. Not sure how one applies "perspective" to all-knowing beings. I don't think "allowed" has anything to do with it. At a simplistic level, 2 + 2 is 4. Thinking it is 5 may be a perspective, but one who knows that it is 4 understands that differing perspectives are wrong. As exalted beings inherit all God has, I wouldn't expect that anyone's going to have any perspective of truth than truth as it really is. The Spirit is light and truth. Pure truth.
7. And intelligence is salvation. So, yes...to attain perfection and exaltation, mistaken views must be corrected.
8. When God gives us His will and ways through his anointed servants then we have the obligation to act according to that will. We need to know that His anointed servants are His anointed servants and have the authority to act and speak in His name, telling us to eat the apple and discard the orange. Then we need to eat the apple and discard the orange despite our preference for oranges. Someone can argue all day that their preference for oranges supersedes the standards set by those in authority but their views amount to kicking against the pricks and hold no water.
9. Obviously we need not be "commanded" in all things. That doesn't mean we get to make up our own truths and perspectives independent of those God has given through the channels He has established for truth to be delivered.
10. Obviously the Spirit teaches truth and gives us further light. But when one is claiming something that is contrary to or somehow theoretically ahead of the pattern God has for directing His work then we are out of line. When we express those views publicly we are likely attacking the gospel, regardless of intent, and a defense, I believe, should at some level, in some way, be mounted.

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Several years past, perhaps during the peak of my posting here, I had a discussion with my brother wherein I lamented the difficulties I felt I often faced, being viewed by so many as a pariah of sorts, declared judgmental, hateful, self-righteous, and generally "everything wrong with the church" -- a prime example of why people are driven from the gospel. In speaking with my brother concerning this phenomenon, I had expressed to him that my entire purpose in even being on the forum was in order to defend the gospel. But in response I am often treated as if I am the one on attack. As I see it, however, the world is filled with individuals who constantly hack away at the gospel citadel, chipping away at it here and there with petty grievances, objections, protestations, befuddling discombobulations, and all manner of crafty and corrupt commentary. When such attacks occur, I tend to try and make it my business to stand between them and the breastwork of plain gospel truths. I have never seen this as being the aggressor, despite the fact that I oft times attend to it aggressively. As I see it, when one man strives to slay an innocent and a second man charges him in response, the first may make the claim that the second is the aggressor, but the second knows the right of it.

But my brother's reply threw me for a loop. He asked, simply, "why does the gospel need defending?"

This struck me as an odd comment. I was raised in such a way that I have always viewed it as my duty to defend the gospel. My brother, in theory, was raised the same way, and yet somehow this basic idea hadn't, at some level, registered with him in the same way it did with me.

And so I raise the question here: 

Does the gospel need defending?

Are you really asking, or just saying stuff.  If you are truly asking and REALLY wanting to listen, I have a bit to say.  I'll be general at first, and more specific to you at the end...if you even read that.

I believe the gospel does need defenders.  I was mentioning today (Elsewhere IRL), the gospel needs a more prominent presence of those who support it.  Go to google, type "What do Mormons believe?"  Look at the top ten results.  For someone trying to find out about the church, how many of those sources would you want them to be their first definitive answer about the LDS church?  I'd say less than half of them are complimentary of the LDS, and quite a few are harshly critical, and in some instances, blatantly lying about what the LDS church believes.  We need more people out there and more LDS involvement in the internet and the various sources young people are getting their information from these days.  The LDS church is trying, but is running far behind the rest of the youthful internet involvement, and doing things like a simple search on google can show this growing problem.  I think there needs to be an involvement in defending and growing awareness of the LDS church and what it actually believes.

On the otherhand, there IS a need to defend the gospel, but one has to know the difference between defending the gospel and destroying it.  Being on the attack is not necessarily defending the gospel, and attacking others who are actually good members on a regular basis and calling them apostates, is more like bullying than anything relative to defending the gospel.  When one bullies in the LDS church, it does more harm to the church and others, than help.

First off, there IS bullying here.  I've had some of the brunt of it recently, including a rather huge pile up due to it in some other threads, which at first I was aggressive (which admittedly may have been a mistake), but eventually just walked away from it after a short apology.  Sometimes it seems that apparently bullying IS approved on this forum at times.  If you do not subscribe to some of the conservative group think of the in-crowd here, that sometimes brings on a LOT of bullying of one.  What is bullying specifically, it is when one goes into an attack in an effort to drive one away from the forum and possibly away from the gospel and the LDS church.  What bothers me even more is that I've seen it applied to others (and bless his heart, Rob Osborn puts up with a LOT of it here, which is uncalled for, as do a few others) because they may not think the same way, but appear to be good members all the same.

Why is this bad?  Because if your joy is great if you save but one soul, what happens if you drive one or more of those souls away? 

In a nutshell, defending the gospel is vital, in my opinion, but being overly aggressive can be bad.

This is a very fine line.  I'll give examples as follows, but the gist of my thoughts have just been given above.

One of the reasons I came to this forum was because it is one of the few places on the internet that is friendly to pro-LDS discussion.  Almost every place I went looking to discuss LDS information and topics was anti-Mormon, and hostile to actual LDS members and actual discussion on what LDS individuals actually believe.  This forum at least appeared to have allowance of good LDS discussion, and rules against anti-Mormon propaganda for the most part.  This is part of what I'd consider defending the faith, having a location or place where actual discussion about gospel topics can be held, but directly derogatory commentary and those who would hate Mormons are normally NOT allowed.

I'd consider that a defending the Faith aspect.

Part of the reasons I came online is that I'm one of the lone members in my family in the LDS church.  It is constantly under attack by them.  They have had bad experiences with Mormons.  There were some particularly bad Mormons that were directly acting as bullies upon my family when I was young.  A relative of mine had found an LDS girl that she thought could be friends with.  Instead, they shunned her, than called her names, then insulted her, and eventually ended up sending her to the emergency room.  That caused a LOT of bad feelings there, and I wonder sometimes what may have been different if my relative (who was also a girl) had been treated better.  It's also colored some emotions about ME in their regards because I joined the LDS church.

That is probably a BAD thing that occurred.

I sought out a place where I could discuss things about the LDS church because I do not feel I can discuss it with those at home.  I may have indicated that I am in a leadership position, which is true.  Some think that those in these positions may be perfect, or are completely solid.  I am inadequate.  In fact, I find it excessively hard and sometimes find myself fantasizing of just telling those above me I can't do this anymore and they'll have to find someone else.  However, that thought also makes me feel incredibly guilty.  I get a LOT of blame in my leadership calling, and sometimes I wonder if I take it far more personally or deeply than I should.  I deal with issues relating to racism, discrimination, petty squabbles, and otherwise within the area which I am over.  Even worse, I have NO answers to be honest in regards to those problems.  The other problem is I do not feel there is anyone I can discuss it with in person.  I do not want to weaken anyone's testimony in real life, and so I can't really discuss it with any of the individuals I know.  I feel guilty if I bring it to those above me and feel they already see it as insignificant and falling prey to insinuations.  And I absolutely can't bring it up to my extended family, as it would only have it reinforce their opinions of the LDS church already.  This place gives me an area where I can state things in that regard and see what others say, but in hopefully a more faith promoting arena such as these forums.

I see that as a way these forums help defend the church.

I've recently reconsidered whether it's a good thing to be on these forums.  Specifically at you (the OP), you confuse your political stance with the gospel.  I am NOT what I'd say far left or really liberal.  In California I'm was actually quite conservative when I was there.  I AM liberal in regards to a majority of those on this forum (of course, in the Bay area a conservative may be a little different than a conservative in SLC Utah).  This is a difficulty that some have at times.  They confuse personal moral objectives with the gospel or gospel doctrine.  When we try to ascribe judgment because of politics, rather than actual righteous judgment, that's probably not the best thing.  At a guess, probably 50% of the US is liberal (and that means probably MORE liberal than I).  In relation to US politics, Europe is more liberal, and thus in comparison to the US standard, probably 75 - 80% of Europe would be liberal (but more like 50% in European standards).  If you are trying to drive a majority of people in the West away from the LDS church...that's not defending the gospel in my mind.  If your goal is to drive away faithful LDS members that are not as conservative as you are...that's not defending the faith either.  Why does this apply to me.  I came here to discuss gospel topics.  At times, these forums put a bad taste in my mouth.  There's only so much I can read/listen to at times of people stating how I and those like me are apostates or worse.  I already have difficult enough times dealing with hostile family members that the last thing I need from members is the same stuff right back at me.  I may need a place to discuss things online, but is it really worth being bullied over?  Maybe it's better to simply leave than to put up with that type of stuff?

This is how this can be VERY bad.

On the otherhand, people have legitimate questions regarding the LDS church.  There are trolls on these forums occasionally that just want to give rise to anti-Mormon sentiment, but a majority that I've seen have been honestly seeking answers from those who LDS.  This is a good place for it and a good thing.  Bearing testimony, quoting doctrine from scripture verses, putting in links to Conference talks and quotes from them are all great things.  Love, charity, and hope towards those who are seeking the truth are the best ways to defend the faith.  The spirit of contention probably is not.  Giving things that help the individual feel the spirit (such as the aforementioned, testimony, scriptures, and conference talks) are some of the most powerful tools in missionary work and in helping others to come closer to the Lord, if not the gospel as well.

This is a very strong way to defend the church.

On the otherhand, when someone says something we do not agree with, we tend to get slightly offended and want to attack back.  I am not innocent of this either and sometimes may also be a bit bullyish.  The thing is we need to realize when we are doing this, and try to stop.  I understand the desire to attack those that attack us.  It is a natural instinct.  We want to attack that which we feel to be directly attacking us, and sometimes we pile on.  I am guilty of this, others are as well.  However, the Lord himself said to go the extra mile, to turn the other cheek, to agree quickly with thing adversary.  When we spur the spirit of contention, generally it is only furthering the plans of the adversary.  The spirit of contention is not of the Lord.

This is a very bad thing and nor really defending the church as much as us trying to make ourselves feel better, rather than help anyone else.

As I said, there is a very fine line.  Very often, we can realize which we are doing by asking what is our intent.  Are we doing it to try to bring others closer to the gospel, or is it some other reason.

I think your intentions are well placed if it is to defend the gospel.  I think defending is a vital thing people do these days.  However, we need to be careful that we are actually defending the gospel rather than utilizing it as an excuse to fulfill some other desire or goal.  It can be hard at times (especially if one feels like they are under attack), but the best example of how to do this is probably to look to the example of the Savior and, though some may see it as too common, a very good piece of advice and ask what would Jesus do?  (and most of the time he wasn't kicking over tables and whipping people, though there is a time and a place for that as well, just not normally).

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Jane_Doe]

42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do you explain the preaching of the Gospel itself then. Isn't that exactly what preaching the gospel is. Isn't that exactly what the missionaries go out to do...present the gospel view so people are aware?

The purpose of preaching the Gospel to win souls unto Christ (via the Holy Spirit who actually does the winning).  It's not to state it just to state it.  

42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think you're making a presumption that has no more validity than my presumption that of the 10 people reading the discussion, 8 of them had their faith shored up and strengthened by the stalwart defense mounted in favor of the gospel. The nasty two remaining may well have been driven further away by it. 

My focus is those whom I am having a conversation with.  

42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But it's only my view. Theoretically no more valid than yours, right?

42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is a strange thing to say imo. Wherein does the discussion have anything to do with an attempt to change truth by anyone? The objective is to teach, preach, share, enlighten, etc. Stating the truth isn't to change it. Stating it is to share it.

An example statement of Truth: Christ is the Savior of the world.  That fact is true regardless of whether or not I state it, or "defend" it.  It has zero need me to "defend" it for it to still be True.   Sharing truth is different than "defending" it. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[The Folk Prophet]

@JohnsonJones I did not start this thread by way of a let's discuss TFP and whether he's Christlike or not. I'd thank you and others to leave the head-swelling and/or humble-pie comments out of the matter.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@JohnsonJones I did not start this thread by way of a let's discuss TFP and whether he's Christlike or not. I'd thank you and others to leave the head-swelling and/or humble-pie comments out of the matter.

I think you should read the rest of my post before you comment on it...TBH.  You'd find out that it may say something very different than you think it does.

I don't believe I mentioned whether you were Christlike or not, and you may even find I commended you on a thing or tow or at least agreed. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

It's not to state it just to state it.  

Of course you cannot know when anyone but yourself is doing that?

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

My focus is those whom I am having a conversation with.  

I'm not saying mine never is. (As in this case with you). But when I "attack" someone for saying something that I consider potentially harmful to the church or gospel, it is typically less about them. I'm not saying I'm in the right, by any means, these times. Just that isn't my goal in "defending the gospel".

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Sharing truth is different than "defending" it. 

I'll need to think on this. Of course the different on one end seems plain...sharing alone is a first time thing. Defense is a response to something else. But the "truth" stated seems as if it ought to be the same.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course you cannot know when anyone but yourself is doing that?

I'm talking about my own choices and actions here.  

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not saying mine never is. (As in this case with you). But when I "attack" someone for saying something that I consider potentially harmful to the church or gospel, it is typically less about them. I'm not saying I'm in the right, by any means, these times. Just that isn't my goal in "defending the gospel".

Ok.  You and I are different in that regard.  My focus is on the person I'm talking with, always.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'll need to think on this. Of course the different on one end seems plain...sharing alone is a first time thing. Defense is a response to something else. But the "truth" stated seems as if it ought to be the same.

I'm glad I gave you something to think about

Edited November 7, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[The Folk Prophet]

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Are you really asking, or just saying stuff. 

It's a discussion forum, is it not? I seek discussion.

I overall agree with most of your post, so I'll only respond to the one paragraph.

36 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Specifically at you (the OP), you confuse your political stance with the gospel. 

This is flatly false. I don't know where you have come up with the idea. I have a gospel stance. Period. I think you're the one interpreting things I say as political.

38 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I AM liberal in regards to a majority of those on this forum

I don't find this to be true. If it were I would not be so often the considered the pariah I am. I never have those with similar conservative values tell me how horrible I am. Yet it remains a constant on this forum. I would dare say that the broad cross section of the forum is quite a bit more liberal than the mainstay LDS.

42 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you are trying to drive a majority of people in the West away from the LDS church...that's not defending the gospel in my mind.

Why would you assume anyone is "trying" to do that?

43 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There's only so much I can read/listen to at times of people stating how I and those like me are apostates or worse.

Examples? I'm not saying it never happens. But as the implication seems strong that you consider me to be doing this...show me where.

48 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 I may need a place to discuss things online, but is it really worth being bullied over?

Also...examples? Where and when have you been "bullied"? Is that just a term you throw around loosely to mean any time you're made uncomfortable by others disagreeing with you? Or can you provide actual examples of others just picking on you for the sake of picking on you? Because from where I sit, you make a comment, I disagree, and all of a sudden I'm accused of being everything wrong with the church and a horrible bully. I honestly don't follow that. It's hard to even take serious. Oh...I take seriously that you may have reason to be upset with something I said that cuts at something personal unbeknownst to me, but "bullying"? Using that word so loosely robs it of it's actual meaning, imo.

I disagree with several things you say. That does not make me a bully, and calling me a bully for disagreeing with you is nothing more than a personal attack, and, frankly, an underhanded tactic to win an argument. I'll grant, I have crossed that line myself at times (though I think you're the only person I've every attacked personally on purpose in direct response to you calling me a criminal and the like). But I've never called someone a bully for disagreeing with me...even when it's three, four, or ten...which has happened to me several times in this forum. You're not the only one to have felt ganged up on. I didn't descend to calling those disagreeing with me bullies.

My interactions with you are often surprising, frankly. I type things with, what is in my mind, a mild tone, questioning your stance by way of civil discussion, and out of nowhere you're calling me all sorts of horrible names and accusing me of things I do not believe or think.

Well...it seems from some of the background you give that you have some chips built up on your shoulder. And knowing that I can try and be more careful. But calling me a bully for disagreeing with you? That isn't getting much traction.

You don't know me AT ALL. You think you do. But you don't. You read things into what I write, missing the tone and even the message often, probably because of preconceived notions and chips on your shoulder. I can't really say more because it would just come across as like I'm trying to brag or build myself up, but I am not swayed by your accusations because I know they are false. I will say that when I share some of the accusations that are thrown my way on this forum with those who are my friends, family and associates that they laugh because they find them so ridiculous. Hmm...even that ends up sounding like I'm bragging.

Hey, I'm a flawed individual, just like we all are. But the things I'm accused of here are just silly internet stuff. I shrug it off typically. Every once in a while it gets me down...but not usually.

Anyhow, I'm probably being more defensive than needed, but I'm a bit ---- well --- defensive after having been accused of being a criminal and everything wrong with the church.

[JohnsonJones]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's a discussion forum, is it not? I seek discussion.

I overall agree with most of your post, so I'll only respond to the one paragraph.

This is flatly false. I don't know where you have come up with the idea. I have a gospel stance. Period. I think you're the one interpreting things I say as political.

I don't find this to be true. If it were I would not be so often the considered the pariah I am. I never have those with similar conservative values tell me how horrible I am. Yet it remains a constant on this forum. I would dare say that the broad cross section of the forum is quite a bit more liberal than the mainstay LDS.

Why would you assume anyone is "trying" to do that?

Examples? I'm not saying it never happens. But as the implication seems strong that you consider me to be doing this...show me where.

Also...examples? Where and when have you been "bullied"? Is that just a term you throw around loosely to mean any time you're made uncomfortable by others disagreeing with you? Or can you provide actual examples of others just picking on you for the sake of picking on you? Because from where I sit, you make a comment, I disagree, and all of a sudden I'm accused of being everything wrong with the church and a horrible bully. I honestly don't follow that. It's hard to even take serious. Oh...I take seriously that you may have reason to be upset with something I said that cuts at something personal unbeknownst to me, but "bullying"? Using that word so loosely robs it of it's actual meaning, imo.

I disagree with several things you say. That does not make me a bully, and calling me a bully for disagreeing with you is nothing more than a personal attack, and, frankly, an underhanded tactic to win an argument. I'll grant, I have crossed that line myself at times (though I think you're the only person I've every attacked personally on purpose in direct response to you calling me a criminal and the like). But I've never called someone a bully for disagreeing with me...even when it's three, four, or ten...which has happened to me several times in this forum. You're not the only one to have felt ganged up on. I didn't descend to calling those disagreeing with me bullies.

My interactions with you are often surprising, frankly. I type things with, what is in my mind, a mild tone, questioning your stance by way of civil discussion, and out of nowhere you're calling me all sorts of horrible names and accusing me of things I do not believe or think.

Well...it seems from some of the background you give that you have some chips built up on your shoulder. And knowing that I can try and be more careful. But calling me a bully for disagreeing with you? That isn't getting much traction.

You don't know me AT ALL. You think you do. But you don't. You read things into what I write, missing the tone and even the message often, probably because of preconceived notions and chips on your shoulder. I can't really say more because it would just come across as like I'm trying to brag or build myself up, but I am not swayed by your accusations because I know they are false. I will say that when I share some of the accusations that are thrown my way on this forum with those who are my friends, family and associates that they laugh because they find them so ridiculous. Hmm...even that ends up sounding like I'm bragging.

Hey, I'm a flawed individual, just like we all are. But the things I'm accused of here are just silly internet stuff. I shrug it off typically. Every once in a while it gets me down...but not usually.

Anyhow, I'm probably being more defensive than needed, but I'm a bit ---- well --- defensive after having been accused of being a criminal and everything wrong with the church.

Calm down.  I believe this was a discussion about Defending the Gospel, and I agree with you that the Gospel does need defending at times.  If that is why you choose to be here, that is a commendable goal.

If you wish to discuss the other thread in depth, perhaps you should PM me about it.  I brought some things up here as examples.  Talking about you specifically, you can be aggressive at times, and sometimes it seems to me that it is because you are more Republican/conservative than adhering to the gospel.  At those times, it can be very contentious.  Confusing personal morality, especially in regards to politics and applying it as a gospel principle, rather than the church's apolitical stance, which has no party nor any party boundaries seems to me to be something that could be tailored down, and causes some despair. 

I think you probably are a fine lad in your offline life, and hopefully have a terrific and strong testimony.  I think that you do not relay that effectively at times online.  In that, as if you are as I hope, one with a great testimony and many spiritual things to share, I am hoping that if you listen to what I'm saying, you can convert your own personal testimony and conviction of the gospel more effectively to aid those like me and many others online in a vigorous defense of the gospel and the truth.

AS for me, yes, there was one time I decided to fight back.  It was once in your regards, so no, I have no repeatedly done anything towards you.  Normally I simply walk away from threads that you get overly hostile in.  I did push back against your insinuations and verbal assaults once, hoping that perhaps you would become just a tad more humble, as well as finally being tired of always being the one to just take it, and finally the desire to not be associated in any way with something that you brought up out of the blue (which I still think was somewhat inappropriate given the context and possibly hazardous to some, but that's a different thread than this one).  It was probably the wrong thing to do.  In that one instance, It was not Christlike at all, and as I said, it falls under the advice I probably should have adhered to.  It is one that we all should think about.  Instead of trying to act in our defense in those instances, perhaps we should ask the simple question that we find so commonly tossed around, but is so true...What would Jesus do?

And in all honesty, at the end of the day, that's probably the advice we should all take, me included.  We should absolutely defend the gospel.  It needs to be with charity and love towards the individual.  We should probably turn the other cheek, or offer to go the further than originally thought.  Bearing testimony, offering up scriptures, and other such things are areas which work better then arguing. 

I think the idea that you have to defend the gospel is a correct one.  The question isn't about whether we should or should not defend the gospel, as I agree with your idea that we should defend the gospel.  The question therefore is HOW should we defend the gospel.  In that light, I gave examples of what I've seen work and do not work in my personal experiences here. 

I think you could be a great proponent of the gospel, and a great defender of the faith.  I just hope that you can reign in some of your personal emotions sometimes, and focus more on how to bring others to Christ in a Christlike manner.

I also think that can apply to all of us (myself included), where we need to focus more on the Lord and what he would want us to do in bringing others to the faith, rather than other thoughts that probably hinder far more then help.

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[askandanswer]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This struck me as an odd comment. I was raised in such a way that I have always viewed it as my duty to defend the gospel. My brother, in theory, was raised the same way, and yet somehow this basic idea hadn't, at some level, registered with him in the same way it did with me.

And so I raise the question here: 

Does the gospel need defending?

The gospel, being true, does not need to be defended. Truth exists in its own sphere independently of what mankind does or does not do, and nothing anybody does can ever change the truth. I think that most of what we do here on this forum is explaining the gospel rather than defending it. The gospel is not self-explanatory, it needs explainers to be understood. I also suspect that some of what happens on this forum is people explaining their own, personal understanding of the gospel, which might or might not be correct. It seems to me that some of what goes on here is one believer disputing/negotiating/discussing their understanding of the gospel with another believer who has a different understanding and I’m not sure if that counts as defending the gospel.

[askandanswer]

A slight tangent, but perhaps a point worth noting: There are people whose calling, to a large extent, is to defend the church, rather than defending the gospel. They are the Stake Public Affairs specialists. A lot further up the ladder, there are people whose jobs, to a large extent, is to defend the church. These functions would not exist if they were not doing something that didn't need to be done. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Calm down.

I'm perfectly calm. Have been all day.

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you wish to discuss the other thread in depth, perhaps you should PM me about it. 

I do not. Why would I? You would not listen to a single thing I had to say concerning the matter before. Why would that be any different in a PM?

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

sometimes it seems to me that it is because you are more Republican/conservative than adhering to the gospel. 

Nope. That's your bias, not mine. I believe in obedience and humbly toeing the line. I believe in sustaining our leaders with ferocity. I believe that God is as both loving and strict as His word says.

What, exactly, do you find political about that?

If you really want to know, I'd characterize myself politically as a lost-cause-ican. The Democrats are doomed. The Republicans are doomed. The Libertarians are doomed. There is no political solution to evil. None.

This view you have developed of me is pure fantasy.

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

At those times, it can be very contentious. 

It takes two to Tango.

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Confusing personal morality, especially in regards to politics and applying it as a gospel principle, rather than the church's apolitical stance, which has no party nor any party boundaries seems to me to be something that could be tailored down, and causes some despair. 

I have no confusion. But, if you really want to discuss it, point out where I have done this and I'll gladly explain where my morality is and how it stems from gospel principles rather than politics.

You really don't know me at all. I am not political. I tend to think most politics are dumb, and even when I agree with views I tend to think the way they are approached by either party is dumb.

Sure, ask me my view on gun control and I'll tell you what I think. I certainly don't consider my thoughts on gun control to be gospel morality or anything of the sort, and any presumption that I do is just that...presumption. Show me where I have ever implied someone is apostate for their political views. You cannot. I have not. Do not. Will not. When and if I do think something in politics relates to morality it is because it DOES relate to morality...as in the case of abortion or the like.

Murder is wrong.

Yep. I said it.

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think you probably are a fine lad in your offline life,

Lad? Are you under the impression that I'm youthful?

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Normally I simply walk away from threads that you get overly hostile in. 

I became "hostile" with you exactly once. That was when you implied I might be a criminal, when you were too pig headed to listen to explanation after explanation of what I meant by nearly every member on the forum at that time -- even the 'liberal' ones. Which you then claim was group-think bullying.

By the way, would you take it seriously if several others happened to agree with you on a subject and I accused you of subscribing to group-think liberalism?

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I am hoping that if you listen to what I'm saying,

I had the same hope when trying to explain what I meant in the other thread. I have the same hope now.

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I am hoping that if you listen to what I'm saying, you can convert your own personal testimony and conviction of the gospel more effectively to aid those like me and many others online in a vigorous defense of the gospel and the truth.

So let's see here. I am here expressing my views in order to try and help bring others closer to Christ. You are expressing your views here to try and help bring others to Christ. But you assume, de facto, that my method is failing and yours is succeeding, despite the fact that we both appear to be just as aggravating one as to the other. But you I need to follow your advice and alter my approach to be less aggravating to you and those like you, because...what...your method is superior -- despite the fact that your method not only aggravates me, but, as you said, seems to cause you to feel bullied by a great many others? 

So I have to wonder -- what evidence do you have that your approach is worth considering and advice worth taking? All I really see is you attacking conservatives as bullies and playing the picked-on card when anyone disagrees with you.

In point of fact, the person who has "bullied" me the most in these forums is you. What moral high-ground are you standing on to lift me from, exactly?

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

AS for me, yes, there was one time I decided to fight back.  It was once in your regards, so no, I have no repeatedly done anything towards you. 

I remember things differently. But perhaps I am as mistaken about you as you are about me. So I'll concede.

But I have to ask, what are you fighting back against? Some strange perception that I'm calling you apostate? Once again? Where? Show me.

And, by way of communication hints. When someone tells you they think an idea you have is mistaken, proper civil discussion by way of "fighting back" is to address the idea and how it is correct or not via logic, reason, evidence, and other support, not to claim bullying, declare the other a criminal, or otherwise personally attack them. Of course since you view my moral standing as less than yours in these matters, I suspect you'll take my advice about as seriously as I take yours.

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I did push back against your insinuations and verbal assaults once, hoping that perhaps you would become just a tad more humble,

Of course when someone tells you that you need to be more humble (because they disagree with your views -- (ironically holding their views as strongly as you hold yours)), you can't exactly reply with, "I am too humble", because that wouldn't be humble, now would it?

Theoretically my verbal "assaults" could be altruistic attempts to serve you with the same humble pie you seem to think I need. Hmm. 

Of course I could point out that what it means to be humble is really more of a firm determination to supplant one's will with God's, and that perhaps you mean that I need to be more meek in my approach...but that would probably not be particularly helpful...probably.

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is one that we all should think about.  Instead of trying to act in our defense in those instances, perhaps we should ask the simple question that we find so commonly tossed around, but is so true...What would Jesus do?

With this, I agree.

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

And in all honesty, at the end of the day, that's probably the advice we should all take, me included.  We should absolutely defend the gospel.  It needs to be with charity and love towards the individual.  We should probably turn the other cheek, or offer to go the further than originally thought.  Bearing testimony, offering up scriptures, and other such things are areas which work better then arguing. 

With this I agree too. Though I would say that from experience, offering up scripture and testimony doesn't do anything to appease those who have determined I am arrogant and judgmental because they disagree with me on something.

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The question therefore is HOW should we defend the gospel.  In that light, I gave examples of what I've seen work and do not work in my personal experiences here. 

I haven't given many examples of this. I suppose I could, but I suspect it wouldn't change anyone's view. Honestly, in starting this thread I was looking for -- as you said -- scripture or other apostolic/prophetic advice. What I'm not looking for, as I said, is an attempt to serve me humble pie, an phenomenon that only seems to occur coming from those who seem to need a good helping themselves.

When I said I'm not looking for a critique of The Folk Prophet I meant it. I am aware of most of my weaknesses without self-righteous know-it-all blowhards telling me what a self-righteous, know-it-all, blowhard I am.  (Note: before you or anyone takes too much offense, I tend to wordsmith my writing a bit -- I guess I fancy myself a poet of sorts or some such -- which is half the fun of writing, even here in the forum, to me. So hopefully the teasing nature of it (particularly with the indicative smiley attached) came across rather than the typical misconception that seems to stem, as much from anything, that I sometimes tend towards a severe loquaciousness in my writing that is only a small part of who I actually am but in the online written word world is the face I sometimes seem to wear.)

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think you could be a great proponent of the gospel, and a great defender of the faith.  I just hope that you can reign in some of your personal emotions sometimes, and focus more on how to bring others to Christ in a Christlike manner.

I will grant that where I do struggle with pride is when someone makes condescending pat-me-on the head like I'm some sort of child who they're proud of type remarks.

That being said...this statement is another indication of how little you understand me. I am not expressing "emotion" in my communications. I simply write with conviction. I believe what I say. I don't FEEEEEEL it. I am not some bleeding heart, as you have clearly surmised. Your perception that I'm spewing emotion all over the place is just that -- your perception. It is wrong and it is more a mirror than truth about me.

Of course I could be a great proponent of the gospel, as anyone could. But it will come from listening to and following the Spirit. If you so dare, feel free to tell me I am not making efforts to do that, feel free to throw that judgment on top of all the others you've so generously granted. I'll let it roll off me as well because I know, as like most thing in my life, what efforts I am making and what efforts I am not.

Yep...it's true. You didn't even make a dent.

You know why? Because I already (note: all these less than perfectly, of course) study my scriptures daily, already do my callings and home teaching, already, pray about how to interact with others, already review the things I type, already consider if what I'm saying or not saying is in line with what Christ would have me do and say, and already struggle to better myself. I can react to you or anyone telling me how awful I am at being Christlike in one of two ways. Be crushed -- cry myself to sleep -- everyone hates me -- think I'll go eat worms -- or I can let it roll of as the meaningless condescending drivel that it is.

Now, can we PLEASE, as I requested, move on from the personal critique and actually discuss the doctrine? I suspect not. I suspect you'll have more to say about your perception of this very response, how arrogant and un-Christlike it is, and how I'll never improve if I don't listen to the wise advice of sages like yourself. If so...oh well.

[Crash]

The question about defending the gospel (apologies if someone else already made the same remarks) comes down to principles. Do we stand for something or don't we?

Going further, I mean to say, is the gospel a tradition, thereby rendering us to habits, or is it near and dear to us, something that is the core of everything we believe and stand for in everything we Do? If the answer is the first, then no, there's no defense that will hold much weight with others. If the answer is the latter, then we have everything to defend.

Through the ages, the prophets constantly defended the gospel. Christ Himself defended it. In a modern world of naysayers in and out of the church, I believe that righteous defense is warranted but not to the point of contention. That's not to say that you can't contend with someone (Alma contended with Korihor) but if gets to the level of name-calling and bickering, it's contention and profits nobody. 

I defended the church/gospel on my mission. If someone wrongfully accuses the church of something, I'll stand with the church and will defend it. Joseph Smith constantly engaged others in defense of the gospel and its principles. He didn't seek out those opportunities but he stood his ground when he was confronted. 

Don't fall victim to the narrative that being Christlike means apathy. Stand vigilant and defend the gospel for righteousness sake.

[classylady]

1 hour ago, Crash said:

The question about defending the gospel (apologies if someone else already made the same remarks) comes down to principles. Do we stand for something or don't we?

Going further, I mean to say, is the gospel a tradition, thereby rendering us to habits, or is it near and dear to us, something that is the core of everything we believe and stand for in everything we Do? If the answer is the first, then no, there's no defense that will hold much weight with others. If the answer is the latter, then we have everything to defend.

Through the ages, the prophets constantly defended the gospel. Christ Himself defended it. In a modern world of naysayers in and out of the church, I believe that righteous defense is warranted but not to the point of contention. That's not to say that you can't contend with someone (Alma contended with Korihor) but if gets to the level of name-calling and bickering, it's contention and profits nobody. 

I defended the church/gospel on my mission. If someone wrongfully accuses the church of something, I'll stand with the church and will defend it. Joseph Smith constantly engaged others in defense of the gospel and its principles. He didn't seek out those opportunities but he stood his ground when he was confronted. 

Don't fall victim to the narrative that being Christlike means apathy. Stand vigilant and defend the gospel for righteousness sake.

You just posted some of my same thoughts on the subject.

When I think of defense, I think of protection.  We are protecting our faith.  I think along the lines of Book of Mormon scripture, where defending the people is allowed, but being the aggressor is not, I feel that defending the gospel against Satan and false teachings is the appropriate thing to do.

Due to some personal experiences with others lately, the song “True to the Faith” has been on my mind a lot.  “Shall the youth of Zion falter In defending truth and right?  While the enemy assaileth, Shall we shrink or shun the fight?  True to the faith that our parents have cherished, True to the truth for which martyrs have perished, To God’s command, Soul, heart, and hand, Faithful and true we will ever stand.”

[a mustard seed]

If you mean defending the gospel on forums and the like, I'm divided on it. I think clarification of truths can be made on this forum in particular. I've read discussions here where I started out thinking one way but then was moved to see a different view because of the way someone phrased something or quotes/scriptures shared that helped illuminate things in a way they had not been before. I won't condemn those who want to engage in apologetics but online...I feel it might be a waste of time. That's how I personally feel. I much prefer making information accessible, for giving people spaces to ask questions like this forum, AskGramps, or the official church websites where missionaries are available in the chat programs. That's how I feel the church could use the internet to spread the gospel, not by encouraging members to spend time online wrapped up in discussions that might or might not be genuine. The nature of the medium allows too much room for people to troll and I even suspect occasionally we get hit here with the random "newbie" who brings up contentious topics or defends obviously apostate things just to stir the pot. Not enough to make sharing and answering things genuinely not worth it though because some people, like me, probably read a lot more than they post.

I prefer the focus the church has on real-life activities and connections because there is an element of online communication that is toxic in too large of quantities. Like I used to spend a lot more time online than I do now during my marriage and it was like people in face-to-face interactions couldn't understand me or like they were speaking a different language, like there was something wrong with how we were perceiving each other. So, I much prefer how we emphasize face-to-face interactions rather than defending the church through text debate.

Even just the absolutely bizarre miscommunication still going on between TFP and JJ(omgoodness, to watch this, it feels like two slightly deaf people trying to talk on the phone to each other, devolving into "What?" "What?" I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for someone's hearing aid to get turned on) is an example of why 'defending the gospel' online should maybe be considered with a grain of salt. How much can you defend something when intentions, biases, and projections keep getting in the way between the actual points being made?

Edited November 8, 2017 by a mustard seed

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I will grant that where I do struggle with pride is when someone makes condescending pat-me-on the head like I'm some sort of child who they're proud of type remarks.

That being said...this statement is another indication of how little you understand me. I am not expressing "emotion" in my communications. I simply write with conviction. I believe what I say. I don't FEEEEEEL it. I am not some bleeding heart, as you have clearly surmised. Your perception that I'm spewing emotion all over the place is just that -- your perception. It is wrong and it is more a mirror than truth about me.

Of course I could be a great proponent of the gospel, as anyone could. But it will come from listening to and following the Spirit. If you so dare, feel free to tell me I am not making efforts to do that, feel free to throw that judgment on top of all the others you've so generously granted. I'll let it roll off me as well because I know, as like most thing in my life, what efforts I am making and what efforts I am not.

Yep...it's true. You didn't even make a dent.

You know why? Because I already (note: all these less than perfectly, of course) study my scriptures daily, already do my callings and home teaching, already, pray about how to interact with others, already review the things I type, already consider if what I'm saying or not saying is in line with what Christ would have me do and say, and already struggle to better myself. I can react to you or anyone telling me how awful I am at being Christlike in one of two ways. Be crushed -- cry myself to sleep -- everyone hates me -- think I'll go eat worms -- or I can let it roll of as the meaningless condescending drivel that it is.

Now, can we PLEASE, as I requested, move on from the personal critique and actually discuss the doctrine? I suspect not. I suspect you'll have more to say about your perception of this very response, how arrogant and un-Christlike it is, and how I'll never improve if I don't listen to the wise advice of sages like yourself. If so...oh well.

In all honesty, I WANT you to be an effective defender of the faith/gospel/church...however you want to put it.  I am NOT trying to be your enemy in this instance, and I am sorry if you feel that I am doing that.  That is NOT my intent.

As per your discussion above, you seem to be a man of strong emotions.  Your wording makes it seem that you have very strong emotions in this regard. In this thread though, I am NOT your enemy.  I am not THE enemy.  I am actually agreeing with you to an extent.  Much of what I've talked about relates to how things affect me, and how that can help you or others in relating the gospel.  This is why I used the personal examples above, to hopefully help you and others better understand what has helped when they defend their faith in relation to my own personal life.  Some were very good, some have been very bad.

Much of this is stuff that one learns on their mission (don't argue to contention, contention is the spirit of the adversary, instead bear testimony, quote scriptures, relate talks from the general authorities).   I can see this approach is seeming to make you more upset rather than help though...so let me try a different approach.

Let me put it a different way.  As I just stated, I am NOT your enemy in this thread.  I am actually trying to agree with some of your points and be constructive in how we go about talking about being a defender of the faith.  I am a member of the church.  If anyone should be easy to convince, I should be it.  There are many here who are also members of the church.  They are our friends (or so I would hope) and want the best for us.  When we discuss doctrine, we should be the easy ones to get along with and agree with.  We can do this best by showing salient points by the church or general authorities, and then bearing testimony about it.

I suppose a good example would be to show such a thing.  Missionaries are at the forefront of representing the LDS church in the world today.  As such, one could label them as the Army of God in our world, and in many aspects, defenders of the faith, and the foot soldiers that we send forth to do battle.  How do they do this battle, not with swords and spears, but with words and prayers.  It is their instruction that I turn to.

Quote

A testimony is a spiritual witness and assurance given by the Holy Ghost. To bear testimony is to give a simple, direct declaration of belief—a feeling, an assurance, a conviction of gospel truth. Sharing your testimony often is one of the most powerful ways of inviting the Spirit and helping others feel the Spirit. It adds a current, personal witness to the truths you have taught from the scriptures. An effective missionary teaches, testifies, and invites others to do things that build faith in Jesus Christ. This includes making promises that come from living true principles. For example, a missionary might say, “I know as you keep the Sabbath day holy, you will find more peace in your heart.”

 

Quote

People may sometimes intellectually question what you teach, but it is difficult to question a sincere, heartfelt testimony. When you testify, pray that those you are teaching will feel the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost. When you testify, you help create an environment for investigators to feel the Holy Ghost confirming your witness of the truth. This prepares them to accept the commitments you will extend.

From Preach my gospel Chapter 11

This is about how to get people to make commitments, but I think this is also key.  It is the Holy Ghost that converts, not ourselves.  We can state elements of the church, but we need to make sure we are doing so in  way which invites the Holy Ghost to be the one that can convince..

Quote

Consider and discuss how the following counsel applies to you: “You cannot force spiritual things. Such words as compel, coerce, constrain, pressure, demand, do not describe our privileges with the Spirit. You can no more force the Spirit to respond than you can force a bean to sprout, or an egg to hatch before its time. You can create a climate to foster growth, nourish, and protect; but you cannot force or compel: you must await the growth” (Boyd K. Packer, “The Candle of the Lord,” Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53).

From Preach my Gospel Chapter 4

Which brings and interesting quote up, so I clicked on the linke which brought me to the talk.  It is more of building the spirit within us, but also has some interesting nuggets for convincing others as well.  It is where Boyd K. Packer also uses the parable of salt in one of it's uses.  It is an example of how powerful testimony can be, even if the one we bear it to still disagrees.

However, he also refers back to scripture.

Quote

If you will speak with humility and honest intent, the Lord will not leave you alone. The scriptures promise that. Consider this one:

“Therefore, verily I say unto you, lift up your voices unto this people; speak the thoughts that I shall [note that it is future tense] put into your hearts, and you shall not be confounded before men;

“For it shall [again note the future tense] be given you in the very hour, yea, in the very moment, what ye shall say.

“But a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall declare whatsoever thing ye declare in my name, in solemnity of heart, in the spirit of meekness, in all things.

“And I give unto you this promise, that inasmuch as ye do this the Holy Ghost shall be shed forth in bearing record unto all things whatsoever ye shall say.” (D&C 100:5–8.)

And then I love this story, of how testimony and the Spirit are far stronger than that of our own wisdom and words.

Quote

There is great power in this work, spiritual power. The ordinary member of the Church, like you, having received the gift of the Holy Ghost by confirmation, can do the work of the Lord.

Years ago a friend, who long since is gone, told this experience. He was seventeen-years-old and with his companion stopped at a cottage in the southern states. It was his first day in the mission field and was his first door. A gray-haired woman stood inside the screen and asked what they wanted. His companion nudged him to proceed. Frightened and somewhat tongue-tied, he finally blurted out, “As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.”

Strangely enough, she was interested and asked where he got that. He answered, “It’s in the Bible.” She left the door for a moment, returned with her Bible. Commenting that she was a minister of a congregation, she handed it to him and said, “Here, show me.”

He took the Bible and nervously thumbed back and forth through it. Finally he handed it back saying, “Here, I can’t find it. I’m not even sure that it’s in there, and even if it is, I couldn’t find it. I’m just a poor farm boy from out in Cache Valley in Utah. I haven’t had much training. But I come from a family where we live the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it’s done so much for our family that I’ve accepted a call to come on a mission for two years, at my own expense, to tell people how I feel about it.”

After half a century, he could not hold back the tears as he told me how she pushed open the door and said, “Come in, my boy, I’d like to hear what you have to say.”

There is great power in this work, and the ordinary member of the Church, sustained by the Spirit, can do the work of the Lord.

Boyd K. Packer's Talk Candle of the Lord

So I'll speak my testimony now, as that's the pattern ascribed.  I know that we can help others to feel the spirit.  I know that one of the most powerful ways to do this is to bear our testimonies of the truth.  We can also do that by acting in such a way that brings the spirit into our conversations.  If we use this way of discussing, where we invite the spirit or try to have the spirit in our conversations, and have them feel the spirit, we will be far stronger in all that we do with the gospel and talking about the Lord.

We discussed defending the gospel.  I hope that at least in this we find common ground.  I feel that by inviting the spirit and providing a space where it can dwell we can be far more effective with it bearing witness, than we can in and of ourselves.

Now off of that TFP and this is specifically directed to you.  I do not wish there to be bad blood between us.   I am sorry you feel so angry and upset.  We should be allies in the Lord for I feel that united we would do far more good than divided.  I have tried to speak directly to you with respect, and I've tried to point out what I hoped were good aspects to praise you (though you unfortunately took affront to some of it, and I am sorry that you did).  I am trying to be more friendly and uplifting towards you (though you seem to not have not taken it that way thus far, I may be mistaken) because I see that you (at least from your original post at the beginning of this thread) seem to have good intentions that I would agree with.  That this is something I think we can find common ground upon, and perhaps build upon rather than tearing down.  I have tried a different approach with this post in hopes that you can better understand what my point of view is in regards to your ideas of Defending the gospel.  I hope that this can be a bridge between us to help us feel that spirit and grow a bond as brothers in the gospel, and find a unity of discipleship that we can share.

Edited November 8, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

Quote

The Standard of Truth has been erected.  No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing.  Persecutions may rage; mobs may combine; armies may assemble; and calumny may defame.  But the Truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independently... until the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah shall say,"The work is done."

No, I guess it doesn't need defending.  We're just supposed to do what we're supposed to do, which includes missionary work in all forms.

[CV75]

On 11/7/2017 at 3:04 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Does the gospel need defending?

Of course God can do his own work and doesn't require our defense, but He wants us to learn of Him and be on His side. So I would say yes, the Gospel needs defending by God, and we can join with Him in the same spirit that the Nephite prophets had for both temporal and spiritual defense as suggested in Alma 48:

“And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people. Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood. Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger; And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.”

[The Folk Prophet]

@JohnsonJones, I've never been of the mind that two people need to agree on everything in order for there not to be bad blood between them. I do not agree with everything you say, including your assessments of me. But I also feel that if I were to respond and point out where and why I disagree that it would be taken as more aggressive attacking and a refusal to compromise. I do appreciate your efforts though.

Edited November 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

Even just the absolutely bizarre miscommunication still going on between TFP and JJ(omgoodness, to watch this, it feels like two slightly deaf people trying to talk on the phone to each other, devolving into "What?" "What?" I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for someone's hearing aid to get turned on) is an example of why 'defending the gospel' online should maybe be considered with a grain of salt. How much can you defend something when intentions, biases, and projections keep getting in the way between the actual points being made?

For what it's worth, THIS ^ is why I feel compelled to respond to JJ and the like, where I should really just walk away. How anyone can view the miscommunication between myself and JJ as two sided baffles me. I ask him a rhetorical question and he accuses me of being a criminal. I state a fact and he calls me a bully. I ask him to not make this thread personal and turn it into an everything-that's-wrong-with-TFP thread and he responds by telling me everything that's wrong with me.

I know I should just walk away. I know I should. But then others come along and see it as if it's two-sided and we're both just as equally bizarre in our responses.

Really?

Alright, alright -- yes...I am prideful and take offense where I shouldn't and have a hard time letting go when others say bizarre things...but really?

Edit: I realize that you may not be saying that our bizarre-ness is equivalent.

Edited November 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

So the previous post in reply to @a mustard seed got me thinking and I think the thought is relevant to the thread.

I'll share my thought by way of allegory.

A man walks through a market who's job it is to verify quality and safety. He goes about his job in a no-nonsense manner. It is his place to ensure the quality and even safety of the stores, and he takes the responsibility seriously. As he does so he often finds himself in conflict with the store owners. Sometimes it gets a bit heated. The man doesn't intentionally create conflict, but doesn't back down when it occurs because he is tasked with assuring quality and safety regardless of the feelings of the store owners. Every once in a while things go really bad. One time, out of nowhere, one of the store owners attacks him violent. They wrestle to the ground, smashing and breaking things. The store owner screams at the man, calling him a horrible condescending bully. Eventually things cool off and they go on their way. The store owner claims that the brewhaha was, of course, started by the man -- the man was a bully who picked on him and always criticized his store and seemed to have it out for him.  Many of the store owners see this encounter for what it is. The store owner was out of line. But a few make the determination that the store owner is right. But some decide both the store owner and the quality assurance man were equally culpable, and state as much.

It may not be an ideal allegory...but....

It seems I face this sort of thing again and again. I am blamed for starting the conflicts, being the bully, and picking on others, when what I am about is that which I feel has been tasked to me (and us all) by my Father in Heaven. And the response of the "store owner" seems, in many minds, to be the criterion as to what constitutes acceptable acceptable by "the man".

True bullying, of course, would occur if the man gave in and allowed the fits of store owners to dictate the standards of his work.

a mustard seed, just because I used your comment as a jumping off point for this thought, don't assume I'm saying that you are or are not blaming me for anything.

[The Folk Prophet]

One other thought, and this is likely natural to the online/forum world: When I agree with things I usually just click the like button. When I disagree I comment. Even if there was a disagree or don't-like button, it would require explanation as to why, and which parts. But that has the effect of making it seem like a great deal of what I say is negative, contrary, and disagreeable. I suspect that is likely true for others as well.