Resurrection of the body

[Jersey Boy]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

So far, this is junior-high-school-level antiMormon thought portrayed in clunky, illogical, self-contradictory wording. Folks, sorry to burst your bubble, but Ian Hall is not a sincere seeker after LDS beliefs. Ian Hall is looking to establish his superiority to those slimy Mormons -- primarily by ignoring everything that proves his words bogus and by accusing others of being meanies for not accepting the honeyed truth drooling from his lips.

Ian Hall is -- dare I say it? -- a troll. I think things will go better when he is treated as such, unless and until he makes a real attempt to engage in honest conversation.

I knew it from the moment I read the first post, which is why I decided to not waste my time participating in the discussion. Anti-Mormons would rather believe the omniscient, omnipotent God, who knows the end from the beginning, somehow made some sort of inexplicable mistake when he allowed the imperfect Adam and Eve to be tempted in the garden of Eden rather than believe the Lord allowed it to happen for a wise and glorious purpose designed to bring our first parents — and their offspring — greater happiness.

[zil]

Hmm.  I don't have a lot of experience with anti-Mormons (read any, as in, I have none beyond whatever I've seen here on the forums), so you guys would know better than I.  Honestly, if that's what Ian Hall is, I would hope he would have the integrity to flat-out say so.  If he is, I would assume it's because he believes it to be morally right, and if one believes that, then there is no reason to hide it (aka deceive, which is clearly an immoral act).  (Yes, I know, such would tend to conceal the fact in this scenario because revealing it would defeat their purpose.)

Call that hope naive, but the older I get, the more dishonesty seems not just pointless and unnecessary but also not worth the effort.

[Guest]

Quote

I will enter this discussion with some thoughts of my own.  First I recognize that you see that principles seem complex and often in contradiction.  This is because there is much more happening than what we can measure empirically.   It is impossible to justify any logical principle when attempting to analyze human purpose within the parameters of birth and death.  This is one reason that religion has become at such odds with science.  In short nothing makes any sense at all.  One cannot justify even the simple principle of justice. 

False, I do not seen any issue between science and religion.  Moses Maimonides saw no issues between the two and neither did Aquinas.  Much of science has been the work of Jews and Catholics if one has to specific about it.  In fact the current cosmological model is named after a Jew and a Catholic priest.

Quote

Myself being a scientist – it is obvious that traditional religions have made a mess trying to obtain any logical basis of religious principles – including justice and freedom.  Your foray into traditional Christianity is lacking wisdom from Buddhism, Hinduism, Jewism and Islam – let alone some of the lessor know theologies like Zoroasterism or some of what has been labeled as paganism that is finding some outlets and what is obviously a divers and confusing cacophony of religious ideas.  

"Myself being a scientist – it is obvious that traditional religions have made a mess trying to obtain any logical basis of religious principles – including justice and freedom."

A scientist would not know that by virtue of being a scientist, that is not what science is.  Science is an empirical discipline and deal with material world but obtaining a logical basis for religious principles is not one of those things which fall under the aegis of science.  

"Your foray into traditional Christianity is lacking wisdom from Buddhism, Hinduism, Jewism and Islam – let alone some of the lessor know theologies like Zoroasterism"

How so, please explain?  I studied Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam.  Does one lack wisdom because someone has studied these? 

Quote

You keep bring up the term “atonement”.  I am not sure but you do not seem to realize that the English term atonement is a made up word by Tyndale when he created the first English translation of the Bible.  Part of the reason Tyndale was burned at the stake was for the heresy of making up word that were considered to sacred to translate.  The obvious problem is that the English translation and attempt to use “atonement” is simply not well defined – therefor so many of religious stripe make whatever they want of it.  Your posts not excluded.  

I use this word, because it is Mormons who use the term atonement over and over again - LDS org. FAIR Mormon, Mormon.org and you take issue with me using that same term?  I am well aware that Tyndale was accused of heresy for his translation of the Tyndale bible which was filled with errors which according to some was  finding errors in the Tyndale was like looking for water in the sea - or something like that.  The Reforming parliament which sat from 1529-1537 found him guilty and sentenced him to death.  He was strangled to death and his body burned.  So, do not fault anyone for using atonement when the Mormons themselves use the term. 

Quote

Most Christians today think that the atonement is defined by the parameters of the sacrificial suffering and death of Christ.  You seem to be determined to not let any understanding to extend beyond that singular event.  Obviously I will not be able to account for things beyond your current scope of hearing seeing and understanding. 

False.  The equivocation of terms used is an issue.  When words are used there is a corresponding symbolical meaning which it carries.  However, as demonstrated here this causes confusion.  You cannot fault another for having a false understanding when you assimilate the vocabulary which evokes an preexisting meaning in one system and apply it in another system.

Quote

But I will make a logical effort with science.  Scientifically not all things are order temporally.  This is a confusing principle for most stuck in our current time-space understanding – that special relativity and applications of quantum physics just do not seem to logically fit.  For example, despite all efforts scientist have not been able to temporally order coupled quantum particles – even taking into account of when quantum particles are coupled.   

FALSE!  The interpretation of INRIM data there is internal time within the set of particles which are in a state of entanglement but none to external observation (Wheeler/Dewitt).  This phenomena is predicted by the WD field equations.  This is because of the conceptual understating of time between QM (absolute) and GTR (relative).

Quote

Religiously I would purport that G-d – that created quantum particles – is quite able to order things outside the bounds of temporal ordering.  In short G-d is not defined by the same considerations of space time that we are.  Thus – since the sins of those whose live events occurred before the suffering death and then resurrection of Christ could be of the same order as those whose life events occurred after.  But then if you do cannot grasps quantum coupling – when I speak, will not make any difference. 

FALSE... Matter already existed, Intelligent matter already existed.  Ahman is a spatial temporal being, and that is evident from Mormon sources.  Now you are making stuff up. 

So according to you, one cannot understand the "suffering death and then resurrection of Christ could be of the same order as those whose life events occurred after" unless one can grasp QM.  So only those who studied particle physics can understand this?  Absolute hogwash wrapped up in baloney.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Ian Hall

[Guest]

So let me get this correct.  Anyone who wants a clarification or gain an understanding is an anti-Mormon?  

I came here looking for information because I am writing a piece on comparative belief systems within Christianity for which I would like to have some details and need some information to compare and contrast.  But I did not expect hostility.  Most religions are very open about the details of their beliefs (Hinduism is a veritable smorgasbord of "religion" which are not even denominations" so I will leave that one out because everyone has their opinion of what Hinduism is).

There is a totally different mentality here of suspicion.  Many Xtians at the CARM discussion board claimed that Mormons are a non-Christian cult and deceptive in their use of language etc.  I put it down do interdenominational rivalry.  I am believe that is was much truth in their advise.  I understand there is honest misrepresentation of what someone else might believe or attempt to portray what someone else might believe in a less than favorable light.  But they were not wrong about you.  This is cultic behavior.

If you believe that there is truth to your faith, religion or denomination or whatever be open about it.  60+ comment to just gain a small sliver of understanding of it.  Thrice I have used Mormons own terminology to be as exacting as possible (eg eternal progression, atonement, Ahman) it appears this is the wrong terminology or suspicious terminology.  According to the Mormon encyclopedia Ahman is the least ambiguous term.

The level of abuse found in this forum is the highest I have received.  Sure I can visit any Xtian site and they see you as a potential convert (not that I am wish to convert to anything) but they will attempt to be open and honest even if someone is not trying to convert.  But not you all, you are so suspicious of anyone one the outside.  This is the kind of typical behavior one would expect from a cult.  There a lots of crazy Christians out there but they will be open about all their crazy ideas, the crazier the idea the more they want you to know about it.  Not with Mormonism.  Even such straightforward ideas are not revealed to anyone.  Be happy living in your little bunker. 

Little wonder all i get is fluff from Mormon websites because the underlying doctrines are super secrets.  Well keep them.  60+ comments (unbelievable) to attempt to understanding what exactly is atonement or whatever you want to call it to please you.  Make up a word or whatever.  I spent a couple of weeks reading about Mormon doctrine, it was not as if I had not done some prior homework regarding how the system works.  I do not know what is true or false in Mormonism, one can never know because Mormons will not tell you are others may want to misrepresent Mormon beliefs. If any misrepresentation are taking place, it is one of your own making.  If I had written a comparative analysis of Mormon soteriology I would have got it wrong, if the basis was what information you provided me initially (I have decided to drop Mormonism).

Also there is so much focus on the person and attacks on the person in this forum.  How many persons here have used the term anti-Mormon, as if someone is against you,  I can see why people may become anti-Mormon after encountering Mormons.  The reason I wanted a summary is to so that I could use it without misrepresenting Mormonism, but all I got was that the more ambiguous representation of Mormon beliefs the better.  Also, none of you attempt to correct any of my apparent misconceptions or my incorrect premises but all you could say is "that is wrong ha ha" instead of "here is how we conceptualize" or "here is how we understand this".  Mormonism is extremely schizophrenic.  

Edited September 1, 2018 by Ian Hall

[Guest]

PS thanks to all those who genuinely want to help me with the article.  The above was not meant against you.  Just my observation of others.  So thanks to all those persons again.  I do not know which ones of you honestly wanted to help and I cannot tell each of you apart, so, nevertheless, thank you and you know who you are. 

I am deleting my account and leaving this forum as it is a pointless endeavor and a waste of time.

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

There is a totally different mentality here of suspicion.  Many Xtians at the CARM discussion board claimed that Mormons are a non-Christian cult and deceptive in their use of language etc.  I put it down do interdenominational rivalry.  I am believe that is was much truth in their advise.  I understand there is honest misrepresentation of what someone else might believe or attempt to portray what someone else might believe in a less than favorable light.

If you got stuff from CARM, that would explain the anti-Mormon slant to a lot of your questions-- without any mal-intent on your part.  You got info from a bad source- that's in no way your fault.  CARM... I really dislike speaking badly about other folks, but I in no way appreciate the blatant lies CARM tells about other faiths (not just LDS).  I'm OCD honest and a person claiming to be Christian while lying about others from their metaphorical pulpit really rubs be the wrong way.  

10 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

If you believe that there is truth to your faith, religion or denomination or whatever be open about it.

And I have been, as have many others answering your questions.  

10 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

The level of abuse found in this forum is the highest I have received.   

Time out: me spending nearly thee hours answering your questions throughly == "abuse"?

 

And then I'm called terms like xenophobic, hiding in a bunker, fluff, secretive, misrepresenting, cultic, schizophrenic, and --- I'm attacking?  WHAT THE??  

Time out.

 

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Guest said:

 It took 60 + posts to get to the point to beginning to understand the it was a retroactive application in anticipation of a future event.

I am assuming that Guest is also Ian Hall.  Regardless how many posts it took, I am glad you achieved cognition.

Another way of looking at this metaphorically is deferred payment or accounts receivable..  The atoning services were rendered from the time of the fall, though payment was deferred, or the accounts receivable weren't paid, until Gethsemane and beyond.  

Again, I am speaking here about only a portion of the atonement--i.e. the state of mercy and redemption from sin. Other aspects of the atonement, such as the resurrection, weren't retroactive, but were rolled out following Christs death, and will continue through to the final judgement.

And, since this thread began on the subject of resurrection, where retroactivity doesn't apply, is it any wonder then that it took 60 or so post to get to the point of retroactive atonement.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 1, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Guest said:

So let me get this correct.  Anyone who wants a clarification or gain an understanding is an anti-Mormon?  

I came here looking for information because I am writing a piece on comparative belief systems within Christianity for which I would like to have some details and need some information to compare and contrast.  But I did not expect hostility.  Most religions are very open about the details of their beliefs (Hinduism is a veritable smorgasbord of "religion" which are not even denominations" so I will leave that one out because everyone has their opinion of what Hinduism is).

There is a totally different mentality here of suspicion.  Many Xtians at the CARM discussion board claimed that Mormons are a non-Christian cult and deceptive in their use of language etc.  I put it down do interdenominational rivalry.  I am believe that is was much truth in their advise.  I understand there is honest misrepresentation of what someone else might believe or attempt to portray what someone else might believe in a less than favorable light.  But they were not wrong about you.  This is cultic behavior.

If you believe that there is truth to your faith, religion or denomination or whatever be open about it.  60+ comment to just gain a small sliver of understanding of it.  Thrice I have used Mormons own terminology to be as exacting as possible (eg eternal progression, atonement, Ahman) it appears this is the wrong terminology or suspicious terminology.  According to the Mormon encyclopedia Ahman is the least ambiguous term.

The level of abuse found in this forum is the highest I have received.  Sure I can visit any Xtian site and they see you as a potential convert (not that I am wish to convert to anything) but they will attempt to be open and honest even if someone is not trying to convert.  But not you all, you are so suspicious of anyone one the outside.  This is the kind of typical behavior one would expect from a cult.  There a lots of crazy Christians out there but they will be open about all their crazy ideas, the crazier the idea the more they want you to know about it.  Not with Mormonism.  Even such straightforward ideas are not revealed to anyone.  Be happy living in your little bunker. 

Little wonder all i get is fluff from Mormon websites because the underlying doctrines are super secrets.  Well keep them.  60+ comments (unbelievable) to attempt to understanding what exactly is atonement or whatever you want to call it to please you.  Make up a word or whatever.  I spent a couple of weeks reading about Mormon doctrine, it was not as if I had not done some prior homework regarding how the system works.  I do not know what is true or false in Mormonism, one can never know because Mormons will not tell you are others may want to misrepresent Mormon beliefs. If any misrepresentation are taking place, it is one of your own making.  If I had written a comparative analysis of Mormon soteriology I would have got it wrong, if the basis was what information you provided me initially (I have decided to drop Mormonism).

Also there is so much focus on the person and attacks on the person in this forum.  How many persons here have used the term anti-Mormon, as if someone is against you,  I can see why people may become anti-Mormon after encountering Mormons.  The reason I wanted a summary is to so that I could use it without misrepresenting Mormonism, but all I got was that the more ambiguous representation of Mormon beliefs the better.  Also, none of you attempt to correct any of my apparent misconceptions or my incorrect premises but all you could say is "that is wrong ha ha" instead of "here is how we conceptualize" or "here is how we understand this".  Mormonism is extremely schizophrenic.  

After several decades engaged in interfaith discussions, I have found that the best way to allay suspicions of ill intent is to dispassionately acknowledge the reasons for the suspicions, politely deny the suspicions, and periodically restate your real intentions, remain consistent with those real intentions, and openly and honestly respond to questions regarding the suspicions.

The worst and oft counterproductive way to allay suspicions is to react overly defensively and toss out a number of accusations and epitaphs that unwittingly tend to reinforce the suspicions.

Do you know what I mean?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 1, 2018 by wenglund

[askandanswer]

On 8/31/2018 at 10:13 AM, pam said:

Blame that on @mirkwood

Let's not stop at skunks. Blame everything on @mirkwood, you'll never be too far wrong, and if you are, well it's ok - it's @mirkwood

[john4truth]

One issue is opinion which is all it is. Anything written in a book other other than Church publication. Many things are not known as in Revelation when John was commanded not to write. There's a huge amount of writing not doctrine. We do believe the rapture as believed by many is not correct, I don't think it matters eternally. There will be the judgement "of the names written in the book of Life" I understand that is the final judgement and evidence Christians will be judged and rewarded accordingly. I don't believe anyone has a full knowledge of eternity. We only know God is love perfected. It is not helpful that we know more.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by john4truth
Spelling

[brlenox]

On 8/30/2018 at 1:56 PM, Guest said:

Greetings

Do Mormons believe in a final judgement that occurs at the end of time?

Is this final judgement a particular or general judgement?

If Mormons believe in the final judgement at the end of time, that would make any sense given the doctrine of eternal progression and the eternity of the universe.

Given these, when does the bodily resurrection occur?  Does it occur soon after death?  If it does not occur soon after death, what condition should be met for the bodily resurrection occur?

A thousand words... 

[zil]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

A thousand words... 

That needs to be digitized for the sake of old eyes.  Perhaps after I tread on the trudgemill.

[brlenox]

On 8/31/2018 at 8:05 PM, Guest said:

PS thanks to all those who genuinely want to help me with the article.  The above was not meant against you.  Just my observation of others.  So thanks to all those persons again.  I do not know which ones of you honestly wanted to help and I cannot tell each of you apart, so, nevertheless, thank you and you know who you are. 

I am deleting my account and leaving this forum as it is a pointless endeavor and a waste of time.

Knowing that my observations most likely will be rejected and harshly rebutted, I as a former participant on this forum, find Ian's experience and his observations and his need to distance himself from such rancor well within my own experience unique to this forum.  I long ago made an observation that it is impossible to do the Lords work using Satan's tools.  Name calling (troll) excessive judgmentalness (accused lack of sincerity without adequate cause) censure and condescension should never be so readily associated with an LDS forum as has been the case here for Ian.  It is unfortunate but illustrates that things are not changed from when I participated here.  My foibles, imperfections, perceived arrogance and whatever other labels were foisted upon me during my time here are all aspects of the human condition each of us possessing our own weaknesses and limitations.  An uncharitable spirit reigns here, accept amongst the clan of regulars, that ostracizes and alienates new voices.  Of course, this may only be relative to my experience and perhaps Ian's but I do lament and am still disturbed by the manifest intolerance for individuals of imperfection no less perfect than these who continue to weigh in the balance and measure out judgment to those of us found wanting in the skewed scales of tolerance applied here.   My first post in this thread a picture worth a thousand words, this one but 245 words that I wish I did not feel were merited.        

Edited September 3, 2018 by brlenox
Word recount

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

Knowing that my observations most likely will be rejected and harshly rebutted, I as a former participant on this forum, find Ian's experience and his observations and his need to distance himself from such rancor well within my own experience unique to this forum.  I long ago made an observation that it is impossible to do the Lords work using Satan's tools.  Name calling (troll) excessive judgmentalness (accused lack of sincerity without adequate cause) censure and condescension should never be so readily associated with an LDS forum as has been the case here for Ian.  It is unfortunate but illustrates that things are not changed from when I participated here.  My foibles, imperfections, perceived arrogance and whatever other labels were foisted upon me during my time here are all aspects of the human condition each of us possessing our own weaknesses and limitations.  An uncharitable spirit reigns here, accept amongst the clan of regulars, that ostracizes and alienates new voices.  Of course, this may only be relative to my experience and perhaps Ian's but I do lament and am still disturbed by the manifest intolerance for individuals of imperfection no less perfect than these who continue to weigh in the balance and measure out judgment to those of us found wanting in the skewed scales of tolerance applied here.   My first post in this thread a picture worth a thousand words, this one but 245 words that I wish I did not feel were merited.        

If your first posts were similar to this one and you used the following language toward its current members:

Quote

 

I found the missionaries unhelpful and not knowledgeable in general, perhaps their young age and general immaturity contribute to this.

???  Gobbledygook  ???

Please let more knowledgeable people comment please.

 

Although harsh, I wouldn't feel to bad, even if merited, if people felt this way toward this forum who treated forum members like this (especially those who have been here longer than me and who I would say have shown themselves to be knowledgeable). This is not to say, I am 100% disagreeing with you. At times, the forum feeling is a cat pouncing on a mouse.

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

If your first posts were similar to this one and you used the following language toward its current members:

Although harsh, I wouldn't feel to bad, even if merited, if people felt this way toward this forum who treated forum members like this (especially those who have been here longer than me and who I would say have shown themselves to be knowledgeable). This is not to say, I am 100% disagreeing with you. At times, the forum feeling is a cat pouncing on a mouse.

I agree but it is a tough call at times. This one dimensional forum environment should always be suspect for it's intrinsic inability to convey true communications and perhaps even worse a unique capacity to magnify our own innate sense of negative interpretation.  I tend towards being very candid and direct in my communication.  It is how I wish everyone to communicate with me and I find that I often cannot even discern when someone takes offense why it is that they were offended. I think I am just communicating.

For me though I think the point is it is one thing to discuss LDS theology but an entirely different thing to embrace and exemplar it's tenets in our interactions one with another.   The former ie. acts of discussion may be enlightening, however, to live it testifies of it's veracity and helps us all to realize higher standards.. 

[BJ64]

On 8/31/2018 at 7:58 PM, Guest said:

But I did not expect hostility.  

Hostility is what I’ve come to expect on this forum. 

On 8/31/2018 at 7:58 PM, Guest said:

The level of abuse found in this forum is the highest I have received.

I agree completely. 

On 8/31/2018 at 7:58 PM, Guest said:

Mormonism is extremely schizophrenic.  

Mormonism isn’t schizophrenic, members of this forum are. The problem as I see it is that many of the “Mormons” here have a very shallow understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it because they don’t know the truth. 

[Jane_Doe]

A public service announcement for all: if you want people to treat you nicely, hitting them with sticks is not a good way to go about it.   Rather, treat people with the loving Christ-like kindness and charitable words you yourself would appreciate-- you'll get much better results that way.  Yes, some folks you'll just never like (whether because you clash or they are just a jerk), but that's why the wonderful forum-tech people invented the "Ignore" button--  it works wonders.  

[BJ64]

4 hours ago, brlenox said:

An uncharitable spirit reigns here, accept amongst the clan of regulars, that ostracizes and alienates new voices.  Of course, this may only be relative to my experience and perhaps Ian's but I do lament and am still disturbed by the manifest intolerance for individuals of imperfection no less perfect than these who continue to weigh in the balance and measure out judgment to those of us found wanting in the skewed scales of tolerance applied here.  

@brlenox, your experience is not unique. It is my experience too. However I’ve blocked the posts of many of the “clan regulars” so I don’t have to see what they have to say. 

[brlenox]

45 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

A public service announcement for all: if you want people to treat you nicely, hitting them with sticks is not a good way to go about it.   Rather, treat people with the loving Christ-like kindness and charitable words you yourself would appreciate-- you'll get much better results that way.  Yes, some folks you'll just never like (whether because you clash or they are just a jerk), but that's why the wonderful forum-tech people invented the "Ignore" button--  it works wonders.  

Would that it was so simple.  Hitting with sticks portends to an act of decisive intent. What I lament was that while I was responding without any intent to offend one of the hypersensitive regulars labeled me as pretentious or condescending or some such and it went straight downhill from there.  Typically my posts are presented without any degree of doubt.  I know my subjects, I am well studied and always back up my material with copious quotes from general authorities.  I do not, when addressing gospel subjects, present anything in the form of opinion as I find opinions to be useless when it comes to true understandings. Nor do I place any stock in my own theological observations unless I can illustrate that an apostle or prophet shares my perceptions and thus I draw upon those whom we should all respect for their spiritual maturity.  Ignore me, but if I align with a proper witness we should be moved to consider upon their words.

As you can probably discern from just the manner in which I couched this previous paragraph I tend towards being very assertive and feel very comfortable with anything I respond to in a theological discussion as I draw much confidence from only finding my strength of understanding in spiritual sources of merit. Most are not so restrained and feel their opinions are the equivalent of our greatest spiritual leaders.  There are no sticks in this process for me.  It is simply a process of deep commitment to understanding being responded to by some on here as if they are threatened by someone who knows he knows a thing or two about deep gospel matters. @wenglundwas the only who was able to suppress any negative response and we carried on a valuable exchange of ideas that I afterwards deleted from the forum.  The point though, to Wades credit, was that he indicated that he could have taken offense at my tone and directness but that he chose not to for the value of the exchange and therein is the appropriate measure of what each should do.  Your suggestion is comprised of the highest expectations of the best behaviors that we can muster but it is already evident that you are characterizing some aspect of the communications hithertofore provided as weaponized dialogue when of mine it was only intended as forthrightness and genuine clarity in communication.  I never find any offense when folks are direct with me but feel blessed for the clarity of communication.  It is my hope that others would feel so inclined.     

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

@brlenox, your experience is not unique. It is my experience too. However I’ve blocked the posts of many of the “clan regulars” so I don’t have to see what they have to say. 

Thank you for sharing. Perhaps if enough were to be so open we could soften the rejection factor around here and make this a forum of greater tolerance and acceptance. 

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Would that it was so simple.  Hitting with sticks portends to an act of decisive intent.

Sometimes we hit whether or not that was our intention (speaking literally and metaphorically here).   It's a matter TONS of practice knowing thyself (how to speak best) and the other person (learning words are interpreted).  And when we each inevitably screw up and do offend (intentionally or not), how to best move past that unfortunate situation.  Humility on all parts is key.  

Again, my comments was a public service announcement, not directed at anyone in particular.

[BJ64]

17 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Thank you for sharing. Perhaps if enough were to be so open we could soften the rejection factor around here and make this a forum of greater tolerance and acceptance. 

In truth I think the “in crowd” would rather drive everyone they dont like away.  However, I’m a trained fighter so when I’m attacked don’t run, I fight back. 

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Mormonism isn’t schizophrenic, members of this forum are. The problem as I see it is that many of the “Mormons” here have a very shallow understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it because they don’t know the truth. 

It is intriguing, irony to say the least, when an individual desires a more polite forum while condescending its members with the following "Mormons" here have a very shallow understanding...because they don't know the truth.

If you condescend others, while trying to uplift yourself, don't be surprised when others act in kind.

[BJ64]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

It is intriguing, irony to say the least, when an individual desires a more polite forum while condescending its members with the following (The problem as I see it is that many of the) "Mormons" here have a very shallow understanding (of the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore argue about it) because they don't know the truth.

If you condescend others, while trying to uplift yourself, don't be surprised when others act in kind.

If people understood the gospel they wouldn’t have to argue a minute point page after page.

You will note that I edited your quote where you cut out 22 of my words in order to totally change what I said which is also something quite predictable on this forum and proves my point about the quality of people here.

Twisting peoples words and changing their senses in order to change what they said to make them look bad is also a very low class thing to do.

Your response to my post is also quite predictable because the “clan of regulars” who are some if the worst offenders don’t like to be put in their place.

You don’t create a “polite forum” by simply ignoring those who are impolite. 

[Anddenex]

44 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

If people understood the gospel they wouldn’t have to argue a minute point page after page.

You will note that I edited your quote where you cut out 22 of my words in order to totally change what I said which is also something quite predictable on this forum and proves my point about the quality of people here.

Twisting peoples words and changing their senses in order to change what they said to make them look bad is also a very low class thing to do.

Your response to my post is also quite predictable because the “clan of regulars” who are some if the worst offenders don’t like to be put in their place.

You don’t create a “polite forum” by simply ignoring those who are impolite. 

And yet, BJ64, you have argued a minute point page after page, so what does this say regarding your knowledge?

You can edit, I didn't change your words, I merely pointed out an intriguing irony which didn't change or twist anything you said. This doesn't prove any point regarding the quality of people, except that you are easily offended.

EDIT: The "22 words" cut out was simply so I didn't have to quote the same passage twice (redundant). Anyone reading can see the quote (with the 22 words) above the "ellipses" quote that took 22 words out. I assumed anyone reading would see both quotes and recognize the quote above correlating with the ellipses quote which means, "the omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete." As the quote is above my ellipses quote, nothing was twisted or changed.

I have seen you quote parts of people's response, so are you then twisting words and changing their sense of order and meaning when you do such, or just the people you want to point out? Was this a low class thing for you to do because you were seeking to make them look bad and is a very low class thing to do? Or is quoting only part of the response OK for BJ64, but no one else? Focusing on a particular point of a response is common within any debate, as this can I say:

1) I agree with the other points but this is a little off or confusing

2) I agree with other points, but want to clarify something

3) I don't agree with the other points, but this point is really off (like calling people impolite while being impolite yourself)

4) And plenty other reasons, including the one mentioned.

Your ease of offense is also quite predictable. What I see is someone who talks about offenders and is an offender themselves. True, we don't create a "polite forum" by simply ignoring those who are impolite, which is why I pointed your irony out.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Anddenex