Are we enemies?

[_wenglund]

I think Plutarch is correct in suggesting that many here wish to evade personal responsibility and accountability--to the point of not even honestly acknowledging they are periodic adversaries, or opponents, or foes of the CoJCoLDS (connotations and synonyms for the word "enemy").

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I don't know, Wade. I think opposition to the church comes for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who are as you describe. Most exmormons I know have done a lot of soul-searching and introspection. And for me, one of the primary reasons I have left the church (insofar that I am out) is the realization of my own complicity and responsibility for the things I did and thought as a member.

[_harmony]

The best course of conduct if you doubt is to adopt the Gamaliel solution.

For those who don't know, the Gamaliel Solution is "leave well alone and let God do the sorting out". All very well and good, except for another time-honored saying: "All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." I will not sit by and watch my church descend into mediocrity and lukewarmness. Call me a crusader, but I will continue to do as I do, and if that means suffering the slings and arrows of P and his friends, so be it.

Anonymity evokes the language of a coward. I, thus, cannot call you a crusader.

P

More slings and arrows. When you finally decide to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, I'm sure many here will notice. Until then, you fail at the most important part of life once again, P.

[_christopher]

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What a load of condescending guilt inducing BS used to try and keep people in line. You sound like some correlation meeting "If there is a problem, it's certainly not the church, it must be you!"

I have yet to meet the offended person who resigned. A lot of inactives or less actives, but none who left.

Just maybe much of the opposition to the church is due to the evidences which show it not to be anything close to what it claims.


Chris <><

[_harmony]

I think Plutarch is correct in suggesting that many here wish to evade personal responsibility and accountability--to the point of not even honestly acknowledging they are periodic adversaries, or opponents, or foes of the CoJCoLDS (connotations and synonyms for the word "enemy").

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course you agree with Plutarch, Wade. You and he are cut from the same cloth. Willful blindness isn't a virtue, but Plutarch and you have both tried to raise it to that level.

I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separate the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.

[_rcrocket]

More slings and arrows. When you finally decide to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, I'm sure many here will notice. Until then, you fail at the most important part of life once again, P.

You have a garbled view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You seem to think that, so long as you do not attack Jesus Christ per se, it is perfectly acceptable to vilify His Church, His servants, and his programs and procedures. I notice that you seem not to ever quote or rely upon the scriptures in your vilification. (Nor on much of anything else except personal anecdote.)

You also seem to think that posters who question your position are automatically unChristian. How ironic. Those who defend the Church are considered antiChristian. Those who attack it are the champions of free speech. [Sounds like the position of an evangelical anti-Mormon to me.]

But your anonymous posts are, indeed, an assault upon that which is good, right and uplifting. Perhaps I am wrong in pointing that out to you and the world. I don't think so. Perhaps I am wasting my time with you.

[_wenglund]

I don't know, Wade. I think opposition to the church comes for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are people out there who are as you describe. Most exmormons I know have done a lot of soul-searching and introspection. And for me, one of the primary reasons I have left the church (insofar that I am out) is the realization of my own complicity and responsibility for the things I did and thought as a member.

I will take you at your word. I am unfamiliar with you as "Runtu", and thus don't know who you are or much about what you have had to say about the Church. But, if you are correct, then I trust going forward that I will see what you say above predominating in your posts.

From my experience with critics of my faith, though, you would be the exception rather than the rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

In fact, I think much of the opposition to the Church is due to a lack of open and honest introspection and an averson to taking personal responsibility for difficulties and challeges experienced in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What a load of condescending guilt inducing BS used to try and keep people in line. You sound like some correlation meeting "If there is a problem, it's certainly not the church, it must be you!"

I have yet to meet the offended person who resigned. A lot of inactives or less actives, but none who left.

Just maybe much of the opposition to the church is due to the evidences which show it not to be anything close to what it claims. Chris <><

Whether intending to or not, you thoroughly illustrated my point. I do appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_christopher]

Whether intending to or not, you thoroughly illustrated my point. I do appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually not, but if it makes you feel good, knock yourself out.


Chris <><

[_christopher]

I am never in an adversarial, opposite, or foe position to the church. I love the church, and wish only good things to happen to it. I am often impatient, resigned, or dumbfounded at the utter nonsense that comes from our leaders, though. Sometimes, I'm ashamed of them, and others I'm downright disturbed at them. But I acknowledge that the leaders are not the church, and I am able to separate the two... I can love the church without conditions. I do not afford the leaders the same regard.

So I can say with all honesty: I am no enemy of the LDS church. I love the church. I feel no such regard for church leaders though, and I fear they are leading our more trusting members down the garden path, and those who exercise the same willful blindness you and Plutarch exhibit are missing the main point of the gospel.

This is interesting harmony, because I look at it the exact opposite way. I would gladly call myself an adversary, opposite or foe or enemy of the LDS church, yet I harbor no personal issues with the leadership or individual members. I have empathy for them, because just not too long ago, I thought and felt and acted as many of them do.


Most members, and that includes the leadership, are ignorant to the issues that caused most of us to leave the church. That is why I don't see them as liars or deceivers, etc. They just choose to believe and aren't interested. For those members who really look into things, and then not only stay, but actively promote the mind twists that it takes to keep believing it.....I have no idea how they are able to do that without the head exploding. The ones that I run across the internet, like the couple here are just silly when you step away and look at the defenses. I believe they are not looking for truth wherever it takes them, they just want to defend an institution at all costs.


Chris <><