The Mockingboard.

[_rcrocket]

I don't live in an area surrounded by LDS in power. But if I did, I may be more tempted to engage in some mockery of certain beliefs which are, frankly, ridiculous.

But you mock, nonetheless.

You probably don't live in a predominantly Jewish area either. How self-justified would you be in mocking their liturgy, dress, language and customs? Anonymously and in a public forum?

I don't pretend to be able to think that I can mute the mocking that goes on here. But, how cowardly is it to mock, condemn and criticize with an anonymous post?

[Jason Osbourne -- you are indeed a coward. It is all about courage. You lack it.]

P

[_beastie]

But you mock, nonetheless.

Please share an example of my mockery.

[_Jason Bourne]

[Jason Osbourne -- you are indeed a coward. It is all about courage. You lack it.]

P

Whatever. I think you are wrong and seek to irritate only. And your arrogance certainly adds nothing good about the gospel of Jesus Christ which I think you poorly represent. You should remain anonymous. As fellow latter-day saint I am rather ashamed at your behavior on this board.

[_rcrocket]

But you mock, nonetheless.

Please share an example of my mockery.

What's the use? You define the term away.

See

Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:26 am

Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:26 am

[_rcrocket]

[Jason Osbourne -- you are indeed a coward. It is all about courage. You lack it.]

P

Whatever. I think you are wrong and seek to irritate only. And you arrogance certainly adds nothing good about the gospel of Jesus Christ which I think you poorly represent. You should remain anonymous. As fellow latter-day saint I am rather ashamed at your behavior on this board.[/quote]

I'm glad to hear that you are a fellow latter-day saint. I apologize for my irritation, arrogance, and poor representation.

But, I really don't think much of an insider, like you, who veils his criticisms of the brethen and the church with anonymity. Why can't you come out and say who you are?

P

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm glad to hear that you are a fellow latter-day saint. I apologize for my irritation, arrogance, and poor representation.

But, I really don't think much of an insider, like you, who veils his criticisms of the brethen and the church with anonymity. Why can't you come out and say who you are?

What critcism of the brethren do you refer to? Which of my criticisms bother you? I actually view myself and mostly a supporter of the Church, am disturbed by much of the hostility I see here but understand some of it. I may be more of a liberal Mormon and think that much that is done is not always of God though we want to think it all is. I am concerned that the image of the Church often seems more important then what may really have happened though I confess if I were at the helm I am not sure what I would do differently. I understand that need to promote faith and the challenge leaders have in balancing what they I think really believe is the mission of the Church against some of the more difficult issues that are part of the Church's history. One thing I am certain of as I read the recent SWK bio, it that he believed with all his heart that the Church is what it claims and was loyal to that causes.

Anyway, I ramble. I am not sure what you think of the Lowell Bennions, Armand Mauss's and Eugene England's of the Church but I find myself more in line and sympathy with how they approached the Church.

You on the other hand seem to think it is all or nothing and seem all for a monolithic Mormonism with little love or charity for any thought that differs from the "right" way. which means of course your most conservative and narrow way. I may have you all wrong of course but that is what I see. You view yourself as the loyal insider and loathe any who have honsest questions and concerns. Criticism of the Church or any of its leaders, past or present, even if the criticism is valid or true is viewed as almost the ultimate sin in your eyes. The some things that are true but are not useful mantra seems to be ok with you.

Again I may be wrong and you can correct me, but since you seem to have no qualms about labeling me and others here as cowards I feel you are ok with others calling you like they see it as well.

As for anominity, I maintain in because a long time ago, in a message board far far away, I was posting under my real name and was faced with a rather hostile poster who was threatening to me. Since then I have decided prudence on message boards such as this is the way to go.

[_Ray A]

Anyway, I ramble. I am not sure what you think of the Lowell Bennions, Armand Mauss's and Eugene England's of the Church but I find myself more in line and sympathy with how they approached the Church.

Eugene England was a long time correspondent of mine, and over a period of some ten years he sent me about half-dozen books that he wrote. He was liberal but very loyal to the church. I think if any member epitomised what "followers of Christ" should be like, he did.

[_rcrocket]

You on the other hand seem to think it is all or nothing and seem all for a monolithic Mormonism with little love or charity for any thought that differs from the "right" way. which means of course your most conservative and narrow way.

You have me wrong but I don't hold you accountable for what I think. I am a very liberal Saint; a libertarian socially and a laisse-faire priesthood leader (they gotta work out their own salvation and I'm not into doing a lot of telling them what to do).

I am also a big fan of the New Testament. Jesus condemned hypocrisy more than any other sin.

Criticizing the brethren, especially those living, anonymously, is the height of hypocrisy. You say you are anonymous because of a threat in the past. Fine. Then don't post anonymous criticisms. (I am not telling you what to do, I am just discussing the boundaries of hypocrisy).

My posts on this board tend to gravitate to the hypocrites. Those who claim to be LDS in good standing but criticize the brethren. I don't really consider the out-and-out antiMormons on this board as hypocrites, and so I don't have much discussion with them. [I tend to suffer fools poorly and condemn the morons who clutter this board with inanities but I shouldn't do that.]

My posts tend to be confrontational and condescending, and for that I apologize.


Plutarch

[_harmony]

Hey! I like Jason. We don't see eye to eye very often, but I respect his reasons for thinking the way he does.

Of course, he is now condemned to a life of unrivaled confusion, followed by an eternity of self-inflicted pain in the depths of hell, with the rest of the people I respect. But hey! We'll never eat green jello again.

Sorry, Jason. You're now officially toast.

[_Jason Bourne]

You have me wrong but I don't hold you accountable for what I think. I am a very liberal Saint; a libertarian socially and a laisse-faire priesthood leader (they gotta work out their own salvation and I'm not into doing a lot of telling them what to do).

Ok maybe I do have you wrong. I hold that out as a distinct possibility.

I am also a big fan of the New Testament. Jesus condemned hypocrisy more than any other sin.

I agree he condemned hypocrisy but more then any other sin? Hardly.

Criticizing the brethren, especially those living, anonymously, is the height of hypocrisy. You say you are anonymous because of a threat in the past. Fine. Then don't post anonymous criticisms. (I am not telling you what to do, I am just discussing the boundaries of hypocrisy).

First, is it really yuor position the brethren are above criticism in all things? If yes, do you see any dangers is such an approach? What kind of problems has this caused for the church in the past? How about the future? And what does this do for members that buy into the idea that the brethren are beyond reproach when they find out about the problems? Much of the anger you see here in the exmo's is caused exactly by the type of thing you seem to be most bothered by. Is there a better way? Second, I assure you I am not anonymous in real life to the people who count-my SP and my bishop both of whom are well aware of my concerns and positions. I think I have noted it was my SP who encouraged me to read Lowell Bennion and Eugene Englund. So perhaps that may give you some comfort at least to some extent about your perception of my hypocrisy. Last of all you have yet to point out what things I criticize that bug you.

My posts on this board tend to gravitate to the hypocrites. Those who claim to be LDS in good standing but criticize the brethren. I don't really consider the out-and-out anti-Mormons on this board as hypocrites, and so I don't have much discussion with them. [I tend to suffer fools poorly and condemn the morons who clutter this board with inanities but I shouldn't do that.]

My posts tend to be confrontational and condescending, and for that I apologize.

I have no problem with any position you take. You certainly have a right to it and can add to the dialogue. But your current tone does not foster such discussions.