Third Hour

President Oaks Receives Criticism After Suggesting “Research is not the answer”

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

full disclosure, I did not read the article. 

 

This is exactly the type of frustration I feel working with the Ask Gramps website.  I have people jumping down "gramps" throat quite often on facebook and when I ask if they read the article they didn't.  Or they answer in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with what was written.

What shows up as the introduction to the articles here on the forum is automated.  The idea is to get people to read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pam said:

This is exactly the type of frustration I feel working with the Ask Gramps website.  I have people jumping down "gramps" throat quite often on facebook and when I ask if they read the article they didn't.  Or they answer in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with what was written.

What shows up as the introduction to the articles here on the forum is automated.  The idea is to get people to read them.

Do the AG titles / intros say something different from the conclusion?  Are they click-bait that reads like something designed to attract people who have some grudge against the Church or E. Oaks, or who want to feed on the latest Church controversy?  Whether it was the author who designed the title/intro that way, or editors, that's still how it comes off.

And yes, I read the article.  Doesn't change my opinion of the title or the opening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pam said:

This is exactly the type of frustration I feel working with the Ask Gramps website.  I have people jumping down "gramps" throat quite often on facebook and when I ask if they read the article they didn't.  Or they answer in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with what was written.

What shows up as the introduction to the articles here on the forum is automated.  The idea is to get people to read them.

I understand and agree with your frustration. But to be fair, the automated teaser quote is the verbatim first paragraph of the article, so it's not false advertising. That's really and truly what's written. And to my eyes (and apparently some others, as well), it comes off as unabashedly critical of the First Presidency, especially Elder Oaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fether said:

 

I want a forum of saints that are mature enough in the gospel to be firmly planted in Christ and this Church and don’t try to separate the two. That when it comes to answering questions, will put recent statements by general authorities over the statements of a general authority in 1860 found in a private journal.

 

Oh, please this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did want to see what it felt like to be President Oaks and have your words over sensationalized. I think this happens to him more than probably any church leader, and I wish that it didn't. Even when he has a very progressive and inclusive message, like this one, he is taken completely out of context and hammered by the critics. I knew my words would not be popular with this group. I even called it out in the second paragraph. It wasn't worded for you. It was the thing I debated back and forth all day. I did not want to upset the faithful members of the Church, but I still wanted to reach those who are much further away. In the end, I landed with it's better to be raw and vulnerable and take the criticism in order to be real, in a hope that it would reach those who are struggling.

Despite the leadership constantly telling us that they are not perfect, that they do make mistakes, that they do not always speak for God, somehow the membership continues to insist that they are perfect. That their opinions are God's opinion. That when they speak, they say everything that God would have them say. We continually rob them of their humanity.  When the leaders tell me that they're human, I believe them. And so am I. When I open myself up, I will do so honestly. Despite statists showing that a larger percentage of the membership does not align on everything from the leadership, it's terrifying to hear someone admit that they don't always agree. Terrifying to some, and relatable to others. It's can be scary to realize that not even the Apostles agree with each other all the time. 

No, I do not have to be a fan of everything President Oaks says in order to sustain him. I can agree with things he says, and there have been sometimes I have a hard time with how he says it. That's on me to seek my own personal revelation. I don't like to see people hurting because they want to belong in the Church, but they feel that they are not welcome. Maybe that doesn't bother everyone, but it's a difficult thing for me. I struggle seeing the heartache people experience because their loved ones do not share their faith and beliefs, and how that can divide a family. And here Pres Oaks was fighting to heal that divide and most will never realize what his real message was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I opened the link thinking "Elder Oaks not popular....tell me something new".

I got no further than the first paragraph, because that was enough to put me off. I didn't continue reading as I don't want to read negative comments about ANY of the apostles.

That meant that I missed out on any positive message that the full article may contain..... because I choose not to read things of this nature. So sorry OP I will instead go back to the original source material and make up my own mind about the message and the intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Heather said:

I did want to see what it felt like to be President Oaks and have your words over sensationalized. I think this happens to him more than probably any church leader, and I wish that it didn't. Even when he has a very progressive and inclusive message, like this one, he is taken completely out of context and hammered by the critics. I knew my words would not be popular with this group. I even called it out in the second paragraph. It wasn't worded for you. It was the thing I debated back and forth all day. I did not want to upset the faithful members of the Church, but I still wanted to reach those who are much further away. In the end, I landed with it's better to be raw and vulnerable and take the criticism in order to be real, in a hope that it would reach those who are struggling.

Despite the leadership constantly telling us that they are not perfect, that they do make mistakes, that they do not always speak for God, somehow the membership continues to insist that they are perfect. That their opinions are God's opinion. That when they speak, they say everything that God would have them say. We continually rob them of their humanity.  When the leaders tell me that they're human, I believe them. And so am I. When I open myself up, I will do so honestly. Despite statists showing that a larger percentage of the membership does not align on everything from the leadership, it's terrifying to hear someone admit that they don't always agree. Terrifying to some, and relatable to others. It's can be scary to realize that not even the Apostles agree with each other all the time. 

No, I do not have to be a fan of everything President Oaks says in order to sustain him. I can agree with things he says, and there have been sometimes I have a hard time with how he says it. That's on me to seek my own personal revelation. I don't like to see people hurting because they want to belong in the Church, but they feel that they are not welcome. Maybe that doesn't bother everyone, but it's a difficult thing for me. I struggle seeing the heartache people experience because their loved ones do not share their faith and beliefs, and how that can divide a family. And here Pres Oaks was fighting to heal that divide and most will never realize what his real message was. 

I actually understand where you are coming from to a degree. I also feel like President Oaks message was being misinterpreted, and I appreciated what you had to say after the first paragraph. But the problem for me was the initial paragraph felt like far to much of an attack on President Oaks. I know the brethern are human. I know they make mistakes. But, they will not lead the church astray and, to me, it sounded as if you were saying that President Oaks does that on a regular basis and if it wasn't for better apostles like Elder Uchtdof, he would be screwing up the church. Now that you have clarified your thinking, I recognize that wasn't your intent, but that's how it sounded to me which is why I took exception to that part of the article. I feel like the brethern are attacked enough by the world, and that they should be loved and supported by us, not criticized, even when they make mistakes as human beings.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Heather said:

I did want to see what it felt like to be President Oaks and have your words over sensationalized. I think this happens to him more than probably any church leader, and I wish that it didn't. Even when he has a very progressive and inclusive message, like this one, he is taken completely out of context and hammered by the critics. I knew my words would not be popular with this group. I even called it out in the second paragraph. It wasn't worded for you. It was the thing I debated back and forth all day. I did not want to upset the faithful members of the Church, but I still wanted to reach those who are much further away. In the end, I landed with it's better to be raw and vulnerable and take the criticism in order to be real, in a hope that it would reach those who are struggling.

Despite the leadership constantly telling us that they are not perfect, that they do make mistakes, that they do not always speak for God, somehow the membership continues to insist that they are perfect. That their opinions are God's opinion. That when they speak, they say everything that God would have them say. We continually rob them of their humanity.  When the leaders tell me that they're human, I believe them. And so am I. When I open myself up, I will do so honestly. Despite statists showing that a larger percentage of the membership does not align on everything from the leadership, it's terrifying to hear someone admit that they don't always agree. Terrifying to some, and relatable to others. It's can be scary to realize that not even the Apostles agree with each other all the time. 

No, I do not have to be a fan of everything President Oaks says in order to sustain him. I can agree with things he says, and there have been sometimes I have a hard time with how he says it. That's on me to seek my own personal revelation. I don't like to see people hurting because they want to belong in the Church, but they feel that they are not welcome. Maybe that doesn't bother everyone, but it's a difficult thing for me. I struggle seeing the heartache people experience because their loved ones do not share their faith and beliefs, and how that can divide a family. And here Pres Oaks was fighting to heal that divide and most will never realize what his real message was. 

Heather, I have always appreciated what you have set up here, and have enjoyed the (extremely limited) interaction we have had in the past. What you say above is reasonable, even ennobling to some degree. It is not at all the overall impression that your article left me with, which was more along the lines of, "We all know that President Oaks is a poopy-head, but he's actually right this time."

If people are getting their noses out of joint because of what President Oaks said, perhaps the fault in every case lies more with them than with President Oaks. Perhaps it would be more useful to tell them to man up and get over their pwecious huwt feewings than to level criticism at Elder Oaks, even obliquely, because he didn't put enough honey on his words. This is doubly true if, say, President Oaks was actually speaking for Jesus Christ.

And if such words as I suggest don't immediately salve people's wounded feelings and draw them in, perhaps it does something even more important and of greater lasting impact: It teaches them the truth, so that when and if they finally humble themselves enough to want to find a way out of their misery, they can read those words and follow them to Christ.

Just a thought. I'm not trying to pile on you. I had a strong negative reaction to your essay, perhaps as much because of who it was coming from as because of what it said. I do sincerely wonder if yours and Brother Snell's ideas about President Oaks (probably the single most brilliant legal mind we have ever had in the First Presidency, and perhaps even among the Quorum of Twelve) reflect an overall attitude that this site's sponsoring body holds to, an attitude which I think would find me a most unwelcome participant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

I feel like the brethern are attacked enough by the world, and that they should be loved and supported by us, not critisized, even when they make mistakes.

I agree with this, but I think to some degree it misses the mark. President Oaks was not wrong in anything he said on this topic, or for that matter with any and all of his comments about homosexuality. As Joseph Smith ruefully remarked, "Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing."

Personally, I'm more than willing to accept heat for the dumb stuff I do. I'm much less willing to get heat for stuff I didn't do wrong, or (especially) for stuff I did right but some bozos think it's wrong. I feel the same way about our leadership. If you're going to criticize them, make darn sure your criticisms are valid.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vort said:

I agree with this, but I think to some degree it misses the mark. President Oaks was not wrong in anything he said on this topic, or for that matter with any and all of his comments about homosexuality. As Joseph Smith ruefully remarked, "Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing."

Personally, I'm more than willing to accept heat for the dumb stuff I do. I'm much less willing to get heat for stuff I didn't do wrong, or (especially) for stuff I did right but some bozos think it's wrong. I feel the same way about our leadership. If you're going to criticize them, make darn sure your criticisms are valid.

Fair enough, that was actually what I meant. I don't think President Oaks has said anything in an official capacity worthy of censure. Quite frankly, I appreciate his straight shooting and to the point manner of speaking. I was refering to the weaknesses inherant in all men, not anything that I am aware that he has done.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These type of threads truly causes me to ponder how I would have responded, if I were one of his (Christ's) disciples (particularly Peter), and the Lord said the following to me (although my heart and thoughts appeared to be in the right place):

1) "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Ouch -- I mean this is where Peter was walking on water and saw a storm and began to sink and was told he didn't have enough faith

2) "But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."

The individuals that are having a hard time with the given message from Elder Oaks, “But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members," would be people who would have the same issue if the message came from the Lord himself -- wait -- it did come as from the Lord himself -- "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

At this time Elder Oaks was speaking as the voice of one of Christ's servants. Elder Oaks is correct. There is only "one" spirit that seeks to stir up hearts to anger toward the Lord's servants, and it isn't the Spirit of the Lord -- it is the adversary who stirs up the hearts of the children of humans to anger against the Lord's servants. I am amazed at how quickly this teaching in the Book of Mormon is so easily forgotten. I am reminded of the non-Israelite who heard of a prophet who could heal him. This mighty man went to this prophet. The prophet told him to bath in dirty water and he would be clean. This mighty man was initially upset that such a mighty man would be asked to do such a simple task. The simple task though wasn't the washing and bathing in the river Jordan. It was the simple task of faith.

I am honestly puzzled how anyone would be upset or mad at the given quote in this article from Elder Oaks. I assume people who are upset at this would also be upset at Spencer W. Kimball's statement "Faith precedes the miracle," which is what Elder Oaks is also stating.

I will be honest though, and for those that know me on this site, I am not very compassionate with people who want to stone the prophets because they disagree with how they phrase something. We see the following prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled in our day, "And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught."

The overall article is trying to let people know its OK, continue to move forward even if you don't agree. Great (that is wonderful). I just think opening an article with "I’m not part of the President Oaks fan club," isn't a very good opener (as others have suggested). I hear this thought and I automatically hear the spirit of my heart and mind say, "I am totally within the fan club of Jesus Christ, and I know Jesus Christ is a fan of Elder Oaks and loves him. I don't want to be that person that has to stand before my Master knowing the covenants I have made pertaining to the Lord's anointed." I can find no evidence in scripture that indicates a state of opposition toward God's chosen servants as a good thing.

I do find plenty of evidence of how the Lord feels about prophetic "weakness" and "fallibility" and it appears those who call them out for "weakness" or "fallibility" might be wise to remember the following discussion Moroni had with the Lord and his (Moroni's) known weakness of writing and how people would take his writing, "And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;" Yes, not a position I want to be in when that time comes that I will stand before the Lord Jesus Christ, and my Heavenly Father.

EDIT: Just as a side note. I am OK with the opposing views on thirdhour.org, because their are moderators that are willing to stop or comment in a thread when things are not within Church doctrine. I also admit I don't like this type of article opening, and it appears this is happening more with Thirdhour articles. I also don't know the objective that happens behind the scenes. The articles though seem to be trying to find the fence sitters, those struggling, and trying to appeal to them to bring them on the good (good being covenant keepers) side. Just not sure if this is the best way.

 

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

This is our own Heather?! I almost can't believe it. I am stunned. This is the most backhanded of defenses of our leadership, the equivalent of telling your date, "You know, for a fat chick, you don't sweat much."

I have to wonder very seriously if I belong on this site at all. I'm thinking maybe not.

 

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

I had the same thought.  There are very few places where you can find spiritual growth online anymore.  I may be better off avoiding it all.

It would be sad to see the two of you leave. But, I've had similar thoughts myself many times, so I get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

These type of threads truly causes me to ponder how I would have responded, if I were one of his (Christ's) disciples (particularly Peter), and the Lord said the following to me (although my heart and thoughts appeared to be in the right place):

1) "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Ouch -- I mean this is where Peter was walking on water and saw a storm and began to sink and was told he didn't have enough faith

2) "But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."

The individuals that are having a hard time with the given message from Elder Oaks, “But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members," would be people who would have the same issue if the message came from the Lord himself -- wait -- it did come as from the Lord himself -- "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

At this time Elder Oaks was speaking as the voice of one of Christ's servants. Elder Oaks is correct. There is only "one" spirit that seeks to stir up hearts to anger toward the Lord's servants, and it isn't the Spirit of the Lord -- it is the adversary who stirs up the hearts of the children of humans to anger against the Lord's servants. I am amazed at how quickly this teaching in the Book of Mormon is so easily forgotten. I am reminded of the non-Israelite who heard of a prophet who could heal him. This mighty man went to this prophet. The prophet told him to bath in dirty water and he would be clean. This mighty man was initially upset that such a mighty man would be asked to do such a simple task. The simple task though wasn't the washing and bathing in the river Jordan. It was the simple task of faith.

I am honestly puzzled how anyone would be upset or mad at the given quote in this article from Elder Oaks. I assume people who are upset at this would also be upset at Spencer W. Kimball's statement "Faith precedes the miracle," which is what Elder Oaks is also stating.

I will be honest though, and for those that know me on this site, I am not very compassionate with people who want to stone the prophets because they disagree with how they phrase something. We see the following prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled in our day, "And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught."

The overall article is trying to let people know its OK, continue to move forward even if you don't agree. Great (that is wonderful). I just think opening an article with "I’m not part of the President Oaks fan club," isn't a very good opener (as others have suggested). I hear this thought and I automatically hear the spirit of my heart and mind say, "I am totally within the fan club of Jesus Christ, and I know Jesus Christ is a fan of Elder Oaks and loves him. I don't want to be that person that has to stand before my Master knowing the covenants I have made pertaining to the Lord's anointed." I can find no evidence in scripture that indicates a state of opposition toward God's chosen servants as a good thing.

I do find plenty of evidence of how the Lord feels about prophetic "weakness" and "fallibility" and it appears those who call them out for "weakness" or "fallibility" might be wise to remember the following discussion Moroni had with the Lord and his (Moroni's) known weakness of writing and how people would take his writing, "And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;" Yes, not a position I want to be in when that time comes that I will stand before the Lord Jesus Christ, and my Heavenly Father.

ED IT: Just as a side note. I am OK with the opposing views on thirdhour.org, because their are moderators that are willing to stop or comment in a thread when things are not within Church doctrine. I also admit I don't like this type of article opening, and it appears this is happening more with Thirdhour articles. I also don't know the objective that happens behind the scenes. The articles though seem to be trying to find the fence sitters, those struggling, and trying to appeal to them to bring them on the good (good being covenant keepers) side. Just not sure if this is the best way.

 

Dude, are you taking writing lessons from @JohnsonJones? This was a wordier than an Ayn Rand novel! 

😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

The articles though seem to be trying to find the fence sitters, those struggling, and trying to appeal to them to bring them on the good (good being covenant keepers) side. Just not sure if this is the best way.

Of course it's not.  Read the Book of Mormon - it explains many times over the best way to reach out to any and all, and nowhere does it give the example of attracting folks by finding fault with Church leaders (and no, this isn't "finding common ground" à la "the Great Spirit is God").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My correction for the opening paragraph:

I'm firmly in the Elder Oaks fan club. I've seen the world point the finger of scorn at God's servants, but Nephi of old taught that the wicked would take the truth to be hard. I can't recall a thing he has said that I don't agree with, and if I could find one I suspect I'd need to repent and align my life with the word of God. Many times he has spoken where I felt he could say with Jacob, “Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts...Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds. “ Although, I have never held these men to a perfect standard, I realize that when an Apostle of God speaks he does so from a place of love and concern for the welfare of souls. He is reaching out to save his brothers and sisters. The delivery may not be perfect and people may get offended, but the intent is good and the message is not wrong. I am in the Elder Oaks fan club! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zil said:

Of course it's not.  Read the Book of Mormon - it explains many times over the best way to reach out to any and all, and nowhere does it give the example of attracting folks by finding fault with Church leaders (and no, this isn't "finding common ground" à la "the Great Spirit is God").

It is also interesting to note in the scriptures the two different types of people that get "hurt" by the words of a Prophet.  First and Most Common...  Sinners who do not want to hear it.  I think it was Mormon who noted that his people complained about his Sharpness...  And his response was this

4 Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it; wherefore, I fear lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them.

then there is also Nephi when dealing with is brothers complains about his word choices his response was this

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

Both response I could see President Oaks using when people complain about his comments

That is the first type...  Here is the second type.  It is rarer but it still exist.  We find the example from Jacob.

9 Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to aadmonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

This is not nearly as common, but as Jacob noted when the Lord commands, the Prophet has to even though it grieves him to do so.

Sadly many look for a reason not to listen, instead of letting the discomfort work on them to repentance and greater discipleship

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I have anything meaningful to contribute here, so I'll just quote forum rule #1:

Quote

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

 

That's the Fourm rule.  I'm not sure if it's meant to govern blog posts or other areas of Thirdhour.org.  But when Heather's post got posted, the summary got posted in this thread on the forum.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I come to this site lately I find my spirit diminished rather than uplifted. It takes about 30 seconds of browsing the articles and posts to get a good sense of discouragement going.

I'm sorry, I don't buy for even one second this, "we need to relate more to evil so those who relate to evil can relate more to us", type of approach to trying to bring people closer to Christ.

I'm quite certain...and have been for some time...that I do not belong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for folks looking for a change, I can suggest http://nauvoo.site/forum.  Originally started by Orson Scott Card, a faithful-only place to mirror his ornery.org site.  The OSC folks closed down Nauvoo, and nauvoo.site started up by a handful of original posters who wanted to keep it going.  Nauvoo would put a little fresh blood to very good use.  

At the end of the day, I've done both for years and years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LiterateParakeet

The part of the article quoted on the OP caught me  by surprise too. My first thought was "This is on a church site?" But then as I further considered what she said, and who her likely audience was, I decided she might be right. I needed to know more.  

So I read the whole article and I liked it. I agreed with Pres. Oaks comments, and Heather's conclusion. I think her intro was just what she needed to reach her intended audience and hopefully build their faith in Christ first and in our leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had someone very, very close to me accuse me of being a sheep when it comes to the church. And I confirmed that accusation. I am a sheep. A free thinking and free to choose sheep, but a sheep, nonetheless. 

I understand that there are people in the church who feel marginalized because they feel differently, think differently, struggle differently than what they perceive others to feel, think, or struggle. And I will always try to be loving, kind, and thoughtful to them. But, we are warned time and time again to be very careful with our criticisms of the prophets--and the members of the First Presidency and 12 Apostles are prophets, seers, and revelators. 

Are they fallible, mortal men? Of course. But, any criticism I might feel, I'm very careful to either share with a trusted, faithful friend to work out my feelings/thoughts or I keep it to myself. While that may be construed as sheep-like following, I'm ok with it. Christ thinks of me as His sheep, so I embrace that name calling. 

Put me in the camp of not appreciating the beginning of this article. I understand the overall thought and even agree with it. But, I do think it could have been approached differently. I am really ok with being accused of being a TBM (or is that now a TBLDS?) and a sheep. That's exactly who I want to be. I wish others were just as ok with being a sheep (which now appears to be a curse word or awful accusation). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, for folks looking for a change, I can suggest http://nauvoo.site/forum.  Originally started by Orson Scott Card, a faithful-only place to mirror his ornery.org site.  The OSC folks closed down Nauvoo, and nauvoo.site started up by a handful of original posters who wanted to keep it going.  Nauvoo would put a little fresh blood to very good use.  

At the end of the day, I've done both for years and years.

I confess I'm hesitant about joining a discussion group where a prominently featured contributor calls himself "Curelom". Looks very much like soft anti-Mormonism. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
14 minutes ago, Vort said:

I confess I'm hesitant about joining a discussion group where a prominently featured contributor calls himself "Curelom". Looks very much like soft anti-Mormonism. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Just a word of caution (for everyone, not just @Vort) the perfect forum doesn't exist. I'm sure you (generic!) will be able to find something wrong with any forum out there. From it not being orthodox enough to not liking the some posters to getting bored with it. Welcome to reality, where the Rolling Stones said it best. You can't always get what you want. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now