Where do we draw the line?

[_Mister Scratch]

In all honesty, I think this attitude of us against Satan is one of the most destructive of all ideas humankind has every held.

So long as groups of people think they are the chosen and elect of God (not just LDS people), and everyone else is following Satan, or destroying god's church, or thwarting God's efforts, or lying, or just plain evil, the world will not find peace.

Seems to me that in order to solve the crisis our world is in, we all need to let go of this nonsense and start trying to figure out how to come together.

Just how I see it.... :-)

~dancer~

The LDS will find some aspects of cyber peace when critics stop mocking, bashing, sneering, cussing and spitting on things that the LDS hold sacred.

Perhaps a reason for this is that it is frequently unclear just what, exactly, should be considered "sacred". There are some obvious things, such as the endowment ceremony, but is Joseph Smith's relationship with Helen Mar considered "sacred"? Or the priesthood ban? Church secrecy regarding finances, what? All too often, in my opinion, it seems that for TBMs everthing is sacred.... Perhaps that's what Runtu was getting at in his OP.

[_why me]

Perhaps a reason for this is that it is frequently unclear just what, exactly, should be considered "sacred". There are some obvious things, such as the endowment ceremony, but is Joseph Smith's relationship with Helen Mar considered "sacred"? Or the priesthood ban? Church secrecy regarding finances, what? All too often, in my opinion, it seems that for TBMs everthing is sacred.... Perhaps that's what Runtu was getting at in his OP.

To tell you the truth, it makes no difference to me if a critic does not like this or that. It is how the the delivery is delivered that bothers me. All can be debated in a dignified and meaningful way. And there will always be interpretations...but it is the use of language and tone that are confrontational.

[_Runtu]

Perhaps a reason for this is that it is frequently unclear just what, exactly, should be considered "sacred". There are some obvious things, such as the endowment ceremony, but is Joseph Smith's relationship with Helen Mar considered "sacred"? Or the priesthood ban? Church secrecy regarding finances, what? All too often, in my opinion, it seems that for TBMs everthing is sacred.... Perhaps that's what Runtu was getting at in his OP.

What is sacred seems to vary from person to person. I think we can talk about all kinds of things without being disrespectful (though you're right that the endowment is not one of those things). When I began participating in LDS forums way back in 95, I came in with the attitude that most people are honestly seeking truth and don't have some sort of evil agenda. I think that somewhat naïve attitude has taken some hits, particularly of late, but I still believe that most people fit that description. But I do believe that part of us (myself included) just enjoys arguing and debating, and the trick for me is to acknowledge that weakness and avoid taking liberties with the truth.

I also think that it's easy to misinterpret. Once on a MAD thread, charity insisted that Joseph Smith never benefited from his religious position, and I said that, no matter what you believed about him, he did gain in power, wealth, and wives. She became very angry and accused me of slandering Joseph's motives when I had said nothing of the sort. So, it's easy to speak plainly and still be offensive. The same is true in reverse, as sometimes the most well-intentioned statements from believers come across as smug and judgmental.

I'm glad why me clarified his position. It seemed a little incongruous to hear him say in essence that integrity was expendable.

[_Fortigurn]

The sad thing about all this war crap is that Satan is a mythological figure, a figment of our imaginations, and yet we people are real. In the process of "battling" against a figment of our imaginations, we're actually doing harm to real live, breathing, thinking, feeling, human beings. How sad, and how pathetic.

Hear, hear.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

In all honesty, I think this attitude of us against Satan is one of the most destructive of all ideas humankind has every held.

So long as groups of people think they are the chosen and elect of God (not just LDS people), and everyone else is following Satan, or destroying god's church, or thwarting God's efforts, or lying, or just plain evil, the world will not find peace.

Seems to me that in order to solve the crisis our world is in, we all need to let go of this nonsense and start trying to figure out how to come together.

Just how I see it.... :-)

~dancer~

The LDS will find some aspects of cyber peace when critics stop mocking, bashing, sneering, cussing and spitting on things that the LDS hold sacred.

Hmm, "hold sacred." I think the idea of sacredness is just the other side of the "Satan" coin, and just as destructive. No doubt everybody does it, individually and as parts of various organizations, but to use LDS as an example ... the LDS will find some aspects of cyber peace when they develop spiritually far enough to no longer be offended by mocking, bashing, sneering, cussing and spitting. There is no godliness in taking offense, no godliness in defense, no godliness in war. LDS make big claims about their source of guidance and their closeness to that source, so it seems that there should be some benefit to that guidance manifested in their cyber presence, but there is very little, and Who Know's statement above is a classic example of that. Don't expect the critics to take the lead. It's your belief that the Holy Spirit fled from their presence at the first sign of malfeasance, so how are they to get on the high road? How about the LDS walking the walk instead of just talking the talk?

[_Who Knows]

...and Who Know's statement above...

Grrr. This used to happen to me all the time on the FAIRboard.

I'm almost ready to change names...

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

...and Who Know's statement above...

Grrr. This used to happen to me all the time on the FAIRboard.

I'm almost ready to change names...

Oh, dang it! I'm sorry. I've always gotten the two names confused, but I really do know the difference between you. Forgive?

[_Who Knows]

Oh, dang it! I'm sorry. I've always gotten the two names confused, but I really do know the difference between you. Forgive?

Yes. It's obviously not your fault if it happens A LOT.

I think it's time I go with Hugh Knowles. Liz, can my name be changed?

[_moksha]

Let's use the reporting of Church Finances as an example. As an LSD person it makes all the sense in the world to me that they would want to be as up front as possible to show the world that they are squeaky clean. I don't understand why they don't do this and I find the multitude of reasons other member have advanced to defend the Church not doing so to be peculiar, given that they always are asking us to put forth a good image as members. What is most peculiar though is the inference that this lack of financial forthrightness is somehow sacred. Can't they see that this would take one of the critic's strong arguments off the table by doing an annual report? Nothing fancy, just the same simple report that other Churches put out.

[_Yoda]

Yes. It's obviously not your fault if it happens A LOT.

I think it's time I go with Hugh Knowles. Liz, can my name be changed?

Yes, it can be changed. PM Shades. He has the access to take care of that for you.