Greatest Issue thread

arbilad · Head Chef

Greatest Issue thread

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

I don't agree with Arbilad's assessment.

I disagreed with a post of his, and he can't deal with it.

Sorry, I thought we were all equals here.

How about if we open our minds just a little tiny bit to tolerate a modicum of compassion for those who struggle with a sin different from our own?

I have NOT spoken out against church leaders or church doctrine. I have no intention to do so.

However, if my posts need to be edited, please point to me what, exactly needs to be changed, and I'll be happy to do it myself.

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 11:15, 2007-05-01

arbilad · Head Chef

Hoss, I can hold my own in any debate. But is is church doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman. You posted that you don't believe that. That is debating church doctrine. You even admitted that that puts you in opposition to church teachings. Either you feel that the church doesn't teach its own doctrine, or you admitted that your opinion, which you used in a debate, is in opposition to church doctrine. I don't see either case being in harmony with the rule I quoted.
If it was simply me getting upset, I have the power to just immediately edit your comments, delete them, or even ban you. Yet I appealed to another moderator instead. If he doesn't have the time, I will have to do the moderation. But if it had simply been a case of me feeling that I was losing an argument and looking for moderator help, I could have done so without an appeal to another moderator. Stop using straw man arguments.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, I have come to the decision that a cooling down period is warranted and probably the best thing right now. I will keep the thread in question closed / locked until Thursday to allow this.

Arbilad, Hoss -- please drop the debate okay. Let yourselves calm down, and then let's talk about the perceptions you both had in less defensive tones.

At this point, I have not edited anything. You guys can think about if there is anything you want to retract over the next two days.

Fair enough?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Sounds fine with me Catherder. But if we're going to insist upon absolute doctrinal purity on every single matter, we should probably define exactly what doctrinal purity is somewhere. Because lots of temple recommend holders disagree with Arbilad and his ilk in myriad of ways.

Debate, schmeebate.

I just posted my imperfect opinion in hopes someone would gently nudge me through compassion and logic back into the fold.

You, know, I really hate it when people jump all over you for admitting your imperfections.

How about if we have a nice conversation using logic and reasoned discussion rather than playing the "this is what the prophet said, so silence, you evil straw-man creator" card all the time?

Or are our doctrines so weak that we can't even admit, (let alone discuss) it when we veer off the road a bit?

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 11:42, 2007-05-01

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Here's the post I prepared that I think could've lead to interesting discussion had you not so quickly LOCKED the thread. I'm personally disappointed that it was locked so quickly, but I understand if we can't help but escalate an issue, we need to take a few deep breaths...

--Ray

-Saved post below...-----------------------------------------------------------------------

While Hoss uses strong language, Arbi, I don't think he's speaking out against the church leadership.

I do think he'd be less inflammatory if he'd focus his attention away from the church membership (which I think does a good job of communicating the importance and sanctity of marriage as defined by God) and the society in which we live. Though certainly the members have not appreciated marriage in the past and many have made a mock of the Covenant of Marriage, I think that it is unfair to suggest that general body of saints does not strive wholeheartedly to live these principles.

Perhaps laxed attitudes in some have translated to generalities that we should all be more vigilant to avoid. I'd be open to discussing these because I find that defining myself and my behavior in a society of sexual landmines is a lot more than just a matter of instinct.

Part of the challenge we face in this discussion is acknowledging where the members are... because we're all in different places, and where society as a whole or its most visible parts are... Clearly it's a continuum that leads us to hyperbolize our own opinions.

I am curious, Hoss. Have members of the church who struggle with SSA asked you to be righteously indignant at the membership as a whole?

What in your mind needs to change in order to make things better--more tolerable to those members?

ALso, How do suggestive comments made by "natural men" in the church towards women in general reflect anything upon this discussion? I agreee 100% that we should all respect women more, and be loyal to our wife above all others. I have always been annoyed by the male tendency to rationalize one's urges as just a part of the male experience with no real encouragement to rise above it, but that said, I also think our struggle with pride, wealth, and illegal immigrants are all problems we need to work on... but it doesn't really factor into this discussion, does it?

I appreciate your perspective on what we can better do to defend marriage, though. IN general I entirely agree that we should focus our hearts upon strengthening our eternal relationships, but why is gay marriage even an issue at all? Could it affect our church somewhere down the road?

Clearly the church has made few political issues so public as its opposition to the further redefinition of marriage in society. Seeing as how this is both a personal issue that affects individuals, and a political hot potato, I understand that there are widely varying opinions and would be interested in hearing more of your perspective and how you came to them. I really hope that we can all do that without condemning each other in the process--no matter how strongly we feel about the topic...

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I'm sorry you didn't get to post that Ray. In the time that I was reviewing the thread, Arbi and Hoss added another 3 or 4 posts, so I opted to move quickly to stem the escalation. But, maybe some of your comments in that post make more sense here as we all work towards a solution that will edify all.

Both of you, arbi and hoss, have some valid points. You both just started talking at each other instead of with each other. Talking past or at one another is what I define as debating... I know, it is not the accurate definition, but it is what they call the stuff that goes on the news shows, and y'all know everyone is just tryin' to be louder than the other and get the last word in there for the 30 seconds of fame...

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, if I really wanted to get the last word in, it'd be easy. I can post to a locked thread without reopening it. But that would be a flagrant abuse of moderator power

There are good discussions to be had on the issue, but it is important to follow the forum rules.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Well I say to you, "BoOOO!

The Ancient Booer (Ray) : Boo. Boo. Boo.
Buttercup (Cat Herder): Why do you do this?
The Ancient Booer (Ray): Because you had love in your hands, and you gave it up.
Buttercup (Cat Herder): But they would have killed Westley (Arbi) if I hadn't done it.
The Ancient Booer(Ray): Your true love lives. And you marry another. True Love saved her in the Fire Swamp, and she treated it like garbage. And that's what she is, the Queen of Refuse. So bow down to her if you want, bow to her. Bow to the Queen of Slime, the Queen of Filth, the Queen of Putrescence. Boo. Boo. Rubbish. Filth. Slime. Muck. Boo. Boo. Boo.

--Ray biggrin

-- Edited by rayb at 12:16, 2007-05-01

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

I pretty much don't have anything more to say on the same sex marriage topic in that thread, so AFAIAK, you could start it back up and I won't say anything more about it.

I just wanted to express my opposition to my posts being edited (or my being banned) because of an ultra-narrow interpretation of one rule from the charter.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Hoss, no, any editing will be self-editing unless there is clearly stuff being said that is out of bounds. I didn't see any of that. I just saw a couple of associates talking past each other and getting frustrated.

Right now, we have only a few broad rules (no charter), and this ain't an occasion that warrants banning or deleting. This is actually why we have this process, so that when a disagreement occurs, all parties can talk it out and come to an agreeable consensus and understanding.

(Oh behave Ray... you're incorrigable

)

Now, will everyone be okay for a while? I really need to get some work done as my boss keeps asking if I have completed the task I need to to ensure a seven figure proposal we just won doesn't flop...

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

I'll be good.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'll be... um... myself... for as long as you can stand me... rolleyes

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I have opened the thread back up for on topic discussion.

If either of you wish to go back and reconsider some of the things you said in light of keeping the discussion on topic, you may now do so.

Is there a need to work through any other concerns or conflicts, or are the two of you reconciled?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

I'm not entirely reconciled. I guess I thought this place was slightly more free wheeling and open than Nauvoo was, but, well, not. It seems I have fallen in with a bunch of Gayle Ruzeika acolytes.

I'm not entirely comfortable with places where you can discuss "politics" as long as you agree with "my politics." Or you can discuss "religion" as long as you agree with "my very narrow interpretation of orthodoxy."

Does everything we post here have to agree with the current church correlation committee, or do we get to work through our thoughts and stuff, which may not always be entirely in agreement with the most conservative of interpretations?

I gots to tell you, when Arbilad went over and prophylactically lectured everyone on the polygamy thread about "don't go here or here or here or here," (and NO ONE had even come close to going there or there or there or there) it really REALLY annoyed me. And I likely agree 100% with his views on polygamy.

I happen to think a faith that can't withstand some unorthodox discussion and examination is pretty much a useless faith.

arbilad · Head Chef

Actually, none of the moderators 100% share my political beliefs. We agree on many things, but we disagree on many. We are not looking for 100% agreement. We are looking for civility and an adherence to the rules, none of which require that you think exactly the same as everyone else. As one example, I disagree very strongly with Ray and Roper on immigration. But we've had many worthwhile discussions on it. Cat and I disagree on voting third party. We have many disagreements. But we manage to keep it civil and levelheaded.
If I was going for ideological purity, I could have chosen moderators much closer to my ideology. They exist on this forum.
Of course, we are still feeling our way on moderation. But I think we've done a pretty good job so far.

Dyany · Senior Member

-- Edited by Dyany at 09:55, 2007-05-03

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, I'm hearing you Hoss. even though the reference to "a bunch of Gayle Ruzeika acolytes" went right over my head (sure, go make me do some homework now

). May I inquire, for my own clarity, is your concern more centered on a perception of the Bountiful forum or with Arbilad's (or my, or Ray's, or anyone else's) personal comfort zone?

If it is the former, I don't know what to say other than we are trying to have a more open forum. We're not perfect, but we're trying. All I can recommend right now is patience as we're still relatively young and inexperienced at this. If it is the latter, then let's open up a sincere dialogue and figure out how we all can do better at not getting annoyed with each other over differences in personal bias and comfort zones.

I think you have referenced a valid concern.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Dyany (and others), I appreciate your concerns and comments, but for right now, it may be best if those not directly involved withhold comment on this particular thread until directly requested by one of the moderators (Roper, Ray, myself, and Bok in her "advisory" role) or Hoss and Arbilad.

The model for a moderation discussion is essentially that of an arbitration between the parties involved in the disagreement. I appreciate Hoss and Arbilad for their willingness to employ this process, and hope that good comes of it for everyone's benefit.

Dyany · Senior Member

Sorry. I'll be quiet now.

arbilad · Head Chef

Dyany makes a legitimate point - the discussions that Hoss mentions are not a very narrow interpretation of doctrine. It is a commonly accepted interpretation, for instance, that "marriage is between a man and a woman" means that marriage is not between two men or two women. The warning I posted in the polygamy thread was specific and straightforward; it's fine to discuss pretty much every aspect of the polygamy question except if it was right for the church to have done it. It is not a very narrow interpretation of LDS doctrine to say that the practice was right. It's a commonly accepted and sensible interpretation. We have been told that the prophet speaks for the Lord. That means that when polygamy was implemented, the prophet was speaking for the Lord. That means that when it was repealed, the prophet was speaking for the Lord. Neither of those points is a very narrow interpretation. So that assertion on Hoss' part is factually incorrect. Those are mainstream interpretations.
Further, Dyany was correct in that there are plenty of forums to debate LDS doctrine. This is not one of them. Politics and religion are two of the most divisive subjects that you can talk about. To keep debate civil, we choose to limit one of those topics. We accept LDS doctrine as true. If someone does not agree with all aspects of LDS doctrine, that is their choice, but this is not the forum to air those doubts. If a political subject is under discussion that touches on one of your areas of doubt, and you feel that you cannot participate without your doubts being aired, then it is best not to participate. This is one of the ways we keep things civil in our discussions of an otherwise divisive topic.
Understanding our beliefs, and why things are so, is good. It helps build a strong testimony to not only believe things because the prophet has said it, but because it makes sense to us. But it is not in any way more intellectually honest to automatically disbelieve what the prophets tell us until we prove it to ourselves. In fact, it is actively harmful. There are many gospel principles that I didn't understand until I got older. There are many that I still don't fully understand yet. But I am willing to make the leap of faith and believe them as I examine the issue and prove to myself why what I have been taught is true. We won't and can't know the reason for everything in this life.
As Joseph Smith said, a religion that doesn't require everything of its people doesn't have the power to save them. I think that refers to our cherished political beliefs too. If the prophet came out tomorrow and said "Vote for Hillary", I would be in shock. But I'd do it. It would take me a long while to understand why, but I'd give the prophet the benefit of the doubt. Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac. We should be willing to sacrifice our cherished political and temporal beliefs when they contradict what the Lord has revealed to us in these latter days.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

...The warning I posted in the polygamy thread was specific and straightforward; it's fine to discuss pretty much every aspect of the polygamy question except if it was right for the church to have done it. ...

I think my concern is that you felt it appropriate to rush out and "warn" everyone, when NOTHING had happened, except that I had posted something that made you uncomfortable on another thread.

It's like: "Hey, this is my board, so nobody even THINK about talking about THIS." And no one had, and no one seemed to even have an inkling in that direction. But now, no one will bother to post ANYTHING AT ALL, for fear of of disturbing the moderators.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

arbilad wrote: (With some responses by me in italics)

We have been told that the prophet speaks for the Lord.

I don't disagree with this. However. At times in the past, prophets have spoken their opinions on things which we are not required to accept as doctrine. We are not required to accept EVERY word that comes out of a prophet's mouth as doctrine.

The practice of polygamy, its end, and the proclamation on the family DO NOT fall into this realm.

Neither of those points is a very narrow interpretation.

And I did not disagree with the points, but rather I disagree with your warning everyone away from them when no one had even expressed any inclination to go there at all.

We accept LDS doctrine as true. If someone does not agree with all aspects of LDS doctrine, that is their choice, but this is not the forum to air those doubts.

Actually, there is very little clearly-defined LDS doctrine. If you look at certain doctrinal discussions on other boards, and a few places here, you can find GA quotes on both sides of many, MANY doctrinal issues. So, just because a post makes YOU uncomfortable does not make said post non-doctrinal.

If a political subject is under discussion that touches on one of your areas of doubt, and you feel that you cannot participate without your doubts being aired, then it is best not to participate.

Why? Would it not be better to express my doubts and have them lovingly corrected by someone with the spirit? Or is it just better for someone to stand on a chair pointing fingers and yelling "shut up about that"? This ain't FHE, and we ain't your kids. So let's treat people like intelligent adults, okay?

This is one of the ways we keep things civil in our discussions of an otherwise divisive topic.

By completely ignoring it? How useless!

But it is not in any way more intellectually honest to automatically disbelieve what the prophets tell us until we prove it to ourselves.

Who automatically does that? I sure as heck don't. If I have a problem with anything (and that is EXTREMELY RARE), I obey to the absolute best that my conscience will allow me. I am always the final arbiter of what I will do and say, no matter what Adam/God Doctrine is currently being preached.

We should be willing to sacrifice our cherished political and temporal beliefs when they contradict what the Lord has revealed to us in these latter days.

It's not a cherished belief for me. I just don't understand it, so the best I can do, in one very limited instance, is just to be quiet about it when not around people I can trust with my true feelings.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Gotta agree with Hoss on this one. I felt Arbi was being a bit territorial--at the time. That said, Arbi's a stand up guy and willing to discuss it with us and do so openly. I just felt that Arbi kinda twisted Cat's arm to get involved, though I'm sure he doesn't see it that way.

Hoss mentioned some opinions from a different perspective, but I didn't think he was advocating it for the whole church--he was expressing his own personal doubts on the issue (albeit he did so quite strongly). Doubts which he has arrived at through his personal experience. That's why i wanted to hear how he came to these conclusions before burning him at the Stake Center... :)

I do like the idea of temporary threadlocks. I just hope we can put aside our personal feelings for the moment and return to open discussion on topics which are difficult. Many of the questions I post are motivated by an incomplete understanding of an issue, or by the fact that different members I respect have come to different conclusions. I try to explore those areas, because we don't know everything or even what to think about most anything.

I hope you won't go away mad, Hoss. I understand how you could feel a little slighted. I also know you have a great heart, and have had plenty of opportunities in your life to both need forgiveness and to forgive... as we all have.

I also understand Arbi's desire to watch over the board and keep it focused and respectable and living high standards. In many ways this IS his baby. And I'm grateful he tries hard to make it something special.

I don't think the board is ruined by allowing members to openly discuss issues that challenge members of the church. We just have to find a way to do this without taking it personally, and when we do, we need to find ways to forgive each other and move on in friendship.

--Ray

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

I'm not going away at all; and I'm not mad. I think on most things this board will find me ridiculously orthodox.

I appreciate Arbi's efforts at keeping things pure, as well.

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 11:00, 2007-05-03

historian · Senior Member

My best wishes to all involved here, and I'm sorry that I stepped in inappropriately.

Edited to remove other opinions.

-- Edited by historian at 11:54, 2007-05-03

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I just felt that Arbi kinda twisted Cat's arm to get involved, though I'm sure he doesn't see it that way.
{aside from the proceedings to Ray} Actually, I do kind of feel that way... but what the hey! I've done it to the rest of you too once or twice...

{focusing back on the group} Okay, so are we making any progress? I was afraid at first that maybe more talking past each other was going on.

But, it appears more to be a concern that Hoss feels Arbilad was sending a mixed message, with the perception that at one place instruction was given vaguely that certain things should not be discussed, but in another thread...? wait... I'm lost now.

Okay, let me try a different idea I think I saw in the discussion just now. There is disagreement as to what constitues official doctrine and what is therefore offlimits to be discussed? Okay, I can buy that. My recommendation that if this is the case, perhaps it would be wise in the future that if there is any disagreement of official doctrinal status, referencing of source material from the scriptures or living apostles be used to show it is official or not before assuming one way or the other. We all will interpret things differently, so let's not rely on assumption if there is a difference in viewpoint.

One thing I would like to specifically comment on, and correct me if I misunderstood this:
We are not required to accept EVERY word that comes out of a prophet's mouth as doctrine.

The practice of polygamy, its end, and the proclamation on the family DO NOT fall into this realm.It is correct that not everything that comes out the prophet's or an apostle's mouth is doctrine. But, that which they state under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is doctrine.

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, the practice of polygamy, the announcing of the end of practicing it, AND the Proclamation on The Family are indeed doctrine, unless one is going to maintain that the items were not issued under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

This is perhaps where Arbilad was coming from in his comment that originally caused some consternation. As members of the Church, I think it is understood that there are certain things we have or are expected to gain a testimony of, and that includes the sundry things like policy and doctrinal pronouncements from the General Authorities. And perhaps those are items which are not productive to spiritual edification when debated.

Am I making any sense? Am I understanding better the concerns on both sides? Or am I just adding water to the mud puddle?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Sis. Historian, as I mentioned earlier, those who are not directly part of this discussion (Hoss and Arbilad and the moderators) should probably best withhold comment on this thread until directly requested, as we are trying to work through this.

Imagine, if you will, Hoss and Arbilad are petitioners before a panel of judges (the moderators) and everyone else are spectators in the gallery.

Thanks!

arbilad · Head Chef

In my opinion, judging whether something is doctrine by whether the speaker was feeling the Spirit when he said it is a totally useless measurement. You can't know what he's feeling. Besides, once can hope that the Prophet would be striving to listen to the Spirit constantly. In fact, we've been told that the Lord would remove the prophet from his place before he would allow him to lead the church astray. As the primary song says, follow the prophet.
And Cat, what sort of example does it set when someone makes a complaint and you talk about feeling strongarmed into taking action? Does it not make people more hesitant to complain? Is that really conducive to running an open moderation system, wondering if the moderators think that your complaint is worthy?
If there is disagreement about the rule of not debating church doctrine, ask for a rule change. It is not appropriate to try to change the rule by ignoring it. If you feel that the rule was interpreted incorrectly, then mention how you think the rule should be followed.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I still think we've got a problem in terms of doctrine if we go that direction in terms of moderation.

Should unendowed members be expected to hold the same beliefs as endowed members, when the first have not yet received certain truths?

Likewise I think it entirely plausible that some members have yet to gain a testimony of the Proclamation on the Family. I think the best thing to do is to point out where a person's beliefs conflict with commonly accepted points of doctrines, and then let the person decide whether or not he or she should hold those opinions.

We are not responsible for enforcing church doctrine. In the case of the person who does not believe the Proclamation to be Doctrine, I think a better approach would be to say, "If you do not accept the Proclamation as doctrine of the church, then I can understand how you would arrive at that conclusion, however, I suggest that you pray and gain a testimony as to whether the proclamation is doctrine or not."

I just think we should leave room for spiritual growth on the board, and not assume that everyone is at the same level of spiritual development. Many folks come to boards like these seeking help to understand doctrinal issues or contemporary issues through a doctrinal lense that perhaps they don't possess.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Ray, all your statements support debate of doctrine on this forum. And it is fine for you to hold that opinion. But, until the rule is changed, it is still not ok to debate doctrine on this forum. It's not what this forum is for. And it would open up a whole new can of worms. The doctrine is basic and simple. People struggle with certain bits. I accept that. There are forums where that is open to discussion. People can receive strength and testimony enhancement by asking questions and having them answered. But this is not the forum for that. It would be a herculean task to keep everything civil at the same time as we debate doctrine and politics.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, just to be clear, when I talk about "debate of doctrine", I'm not talking about understanding an issue better, or asking a question to get something clarified, or things like that. I'm talking about taking up a position contrary to church doctrine and trying to convince others of it. For instance, Valhalla asked for help understanding the principle that children under 8 get a free ticket to heaven. That was fine, because he wasn't saying, "This is wrong, and this is why you shouldn't believe it." He said, "I accept this on faith, but please help me to understand why it is so."

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I support open civil discussion and sharing... with the understanding that none of us have a perfect understanding of the doctrines of the church.

Do you believe you have a perfect understanding of church doctrine?

If not, then you're enforcing the unenforceable.

Also, if you can't express your struggles, how can you get help for them?

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, I can see that this is perhaps getting a bit more complex than I thought it would get.

Arbilad, sorry if my tongue in cheek aside to Ray felt out of line. Granted, I can see how you may not have found it humorous, but a little comic relief was warranted.

Let's try to stick to the issue at hand here (and thank you for taking the other issues offline from this thread Arbilad, as they are concerns that need addressing as well), and I think Ray has summed it up decently, essentially who or what is the standard by which we as a forum will agree to any point in the gospel being official church doctrine -- or is it up to individual interpretation -- and in light of that, what accomodation is there for those who have a different understanding.

Do we all concur on that summation?

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, the basic gospel doctrines are easy to understand and made enumerated in clear, concise manner in several places. As Nephi said:

2 Ne. 33: 6 6 I aglory in bplainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath credeemed my soul from hell.

Basic doctrines are clear and simple. God would be an unfair God otherwise. Our main challenge in this life is not understanding the doctrine, but making ourselves obedient and changing from the natural man to an exhalted man.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Arbi, Hoss,

What do you suggest? What do you feel would work so that in the future, you or anyone else on the forum, who comes across the dilemna presented by this misunderstanding could avoid consternation and go away "shaking hands" one with another?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Cat Herder wrote:

There is disagreement as to what constitues official doctrine and what is therefore offlimits to be discussed?

ImHO, even if there is no disagreement, someone should be able to say "I have this issue with it, or I don't understand why, or even, I just can't bring myself to accept it yet" and we should be able to discuss it in a calm and rational manner without resorting to yelling at the person to just stop talking about it.

For example, another poster in the thread said to me, "I agree with your viewpoint, but that makes me MORE inclined to be against gay marriage."

See how much more intriguing and helpful that response was than Arbilad's "you're breaking the rules" comment was?

... referencing of source material from the scriptures or living apostles be used to show it is official or not before assuming one way or the other.

That is a good idea, but frequently, we can play "dueling apostles"

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, the practice of polygamy, the announcing of the end of practicing it, AND the Proclamation on The Family are indeed doctrine, unless one is going to maintain that the items were not issued under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

I meant to say that they do not fall into the realm of a prophet speaking his own non-binding opinion, and have been accepted as doctrine by the church. Sorry that I was unclear.

Am I making any sense?
Yes.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

Arbi, Hoss,

What do you suggest? What do you feel would work so that in the future, you or anyone else on the forum, who comes across the dilemna presented by this misunderstanding could avoid consternation and go away "shaking hands" one with another?

That's a really good question, Cat, and I don't have a really good answer yet. I'll think about it, because just posting my vague impressions could make the situation worse

BTW, to be perfectly clear about how the rule works. An example of debating doctrine would be, for instance, saying that you don't believe the word of wisdom, that it's wrong because medical science has proven that there are beneficial properties to wine and coffee, etc. That is against the rules of this forum. It is not debating doctrine to ask whether drinking Coke is against the word of wisdom.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

In my opinion, judging whether something is doctrine by whether the speaker was feeling the Spirit when he said it is a totally useless measurement.

Perhaps that is why one should rely upon spiritual confirmation of the prophet's words. Yes, obey, in the mean time, but be the final arbiter of your own actions under every circumstance.

...once can hope that the Prophet would be striving to listen to the Spirit constantly. In fact, we've been told that the Lord would remove the prophet from his place before he would allow him to lead the church astray.

Um, blood atonement, Adam/God doctrine anyone?

As the primary song says, follow the prophet.

Yes. That is the direction of safety and peace. However, if we do so blindly, especially in the case of local leaders, we can end up with the MMM. Or other, less deadly, but quite hurtful actions.

Again, we are the final arbiter of our own attitudes and actions. We must be close enough to the Spirit to always be so.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Cat Herder wrote:

Arbi, Hoss,

What do you suggest? What do you feel would work so that in the future, you or anyone else on the forum, who comes across the dilemna presented by this misunderstanding could avoid consternation and go away "shaking hands" one with another?

I don't know. Perhaps we should just let it go for a while and see if things work themselves out.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

You mean like forgive ray for taking sides, TOO??? Can you really do that and live with yourselves???

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:

BTW, just to be clear, when I talk about "debate of doctrine", I'm not talking about understanding an issue better, or asking a question to get something clarified, or things like that. I'm talking about taking up a position contrary to church doctrine and trying to convince others of it.

I did not get the impression that Hoss was in any way trying to convince others of his opinion. When he stated his opinion, he was actually answering a direct question. So, by Arbilad's own definition above, I don't think Hoss was debating, and therefore was not in violation of the forum rules. Additionally, he was most civil in that thread and this one.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

You know... that is exactly the way I saw it too bok... confused

I have been at a loss much of the time to figure out the "rules", despite what is written in stone, there seems to be a lot that is assumed everyone should understand. The rules seem to evolve just about the time I get a feel for them. But again... I am the newbie here... and still learning my way around...

arbilad · Head Chef

Bok, while you may have a point with the other, I take exception to this statement:

Additionally, he was most civil in that thread and this one.
If you feel that I have been uncivil, please point out how. I have taken pains to limit my statements. I feel that Hoss has been uncivil in his comments. For instance, you can have a difference of opinion on what the rules mean, or if one has been violated. But a statement such as "I disagreed with a post of his, and he can't deal with it." is a simple ad hominem attack. Or "This ain't FHE, and we ain't your kids."
I would appreciate some factual basis to your statement, rather than simply a blanket assertion which seems to have no basis in facts.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I think what we're all waiting for, Arbi, is for you to make a public apology for all the evil in your life that you've done... and will yet do...

--Ray

PS> No good deed goes unpunished, my friend. Now bend over and take your spanking like a good saint!

-- Edited by rayb at 14:59, 2007-05-03

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

But a statement such as "I disagreed with a post of his, and he can't deal with it." is a simple ad hominem attack. Or "This ain't FHE, and we ain't your kids."

You are correct. Those were very snarky comments. I apologize.

I would appreciate some factual basis to your statement, rather than simply a blanket assertion which seems to have no basis in facts.

I am pretty sure that you're not my dad.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Maybe it is good for folks to just take a breather from this topic for a few days. I think we have made some progress, but obviously some feelings are still a little tender and anything else right now may just be rubbing salt on a wound.

I think that so far, some good has come of this discussion. We've identified that as a forum, we have some areas we need to grow in, and probably better define in terms of rules and policies so that we are all on the same page (or at least same chapter). We'll start on that process seperately in a few days, if the moderator staff and forum membership are keen to do so.

Thanks to everyone who has provided input. I won't temporarily lock this thread, but over the next couple days, if anyone wants to make comments, please limit them to things that we can look at improving to avoid future misunderstanding. Please avoid commenting on who was right and who was wrong. We are looking for solutions and not fuel to add to any fire, real or percieved.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:

Bok, while you may have a point with the other, I take exception to this statement:

Additionally, he was most civil in that thread and this one.
If you feel that I have been uncivil, please point out how. I have taken pains to limit my statements. I feel that Hoss has been uncivil in his comments. For instance, you can have a difference of opinion on what the rules mean, or if one has been violated. But a statement such as "I disagreed with a post of his, and he can't deal with it." is a simple ad hominem attack. Or "This ain't FHE, and we ain't your kids."
I would appreciate some factual basis to your statement, rather than simply a blanket assertion which seems to have no basis in facts.

No, you misunderstand me. I didn't think either one of you was uncivil. I wasn't comparing Hoss to Arbilad when I wrote "most civil". I guess should have used a different word. I thought Hoss was quite civil, rather civil, adequately civil... take your pick. I think he could have done much worse.

Perhaps Hoss made a poor assumption on the "he can't deal with it" comment...but I can certainly see why he might feel that way. But he also made some comments in this thread that indicated respect and appreciation too, which are inconsistent with incivility, imo.