Close Topic Options

John Rants Because He Cannot Get Lds Mature Access

John Rants Because He Cannot Get LDS Mature Access

NOTE: In a reply to this Thread: Source 3

Name: John

Comments: How? Experience, Experience, Experience. No, I do not fear the "Church of Christ."

There is no formal list, but there is no mistaking the expressions on people's faces, or on my former bishop's face, simply for bringing up a point of well-established though historical information or former doctrine. Like I said in my first post, I have also seen attempts to discuss these subjects abruptly shut down in Gospel Doctrine class.

Even in the reply previous to yours by "Nighthawk," he acknowledged that discussing these things as an "acceptable risk," and even that 'some people have been thrown out of the Church just for discussing these subjects." Doesn't that speak to the fact that certain subjects are looked at with great suspicion in LDS hierarchical circles? That is fact, not fear.

I agree wholeheartedly with "Nighthawk" where he refers to these former core principles saying that "Just because some people don't want to discuss something, doesn't mean that there isn't truth to it." But doesn't that give serious pause when someone tries to learn and gain understanding on such things, that this would incur a risk (which is "acceptable?") to your continuance in the very organization that is supposed to provide you with the opportunity, ordinances, and living principles necessary for your salvation and exaltation? The old story of the "Emperor has no Clothes" comes to mind here. Call me old-fashioned if you will, but it seems that if one is going to be "active" and committed to a religion (or more exactly a specific, named Church in this case), that one would scrupulously follow the prescriptions of the sustained leadership.

Hence the source of the appalling contradiction that I see in the policies of this web site, where you have to be a part of the inner "acceptables" to discuss things that by your own judgment you consider "mature," but yet have gotten some people, also by your own admittance, 'thrown out."

I freely understand and sympathize with your desire to have a discussion "forum" free from the assaults of the vulgar and those who have no constructive desire or testimony of the Restoration. That is a real conundrum for a true "forum," as many out there cannot be placated by any reasonable discussion. As the English sportsman and writer Charles Caleb Colton said,

But a "Forum" free from simple disagreement? Benjamin Franklin would also be appalled.

The result is to isolate yourselves in a lofty position of judges on the "maturity" of others, or on the correctness of doctrine-something that from your point of view, presumably only the LDS leadership would be qualified to make decisions on.

A "Forum" is defined as: "A public meeting place for open discussion. -- A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website" (on-line dictionary). You defeat the stated purpose of the definition of "forum" of "open discussion" by stipulating that people demonstrate before admittance that they meet your standards of "maturity" or can walk in lockstep with your perceptions. Your own admittance criteria stipulate just that. It is the LDS conundrum all over again. You appear as well as the unassailable and insulated "brethren" of your web site.

You will note that it was not I that brought up the word "Gestapo," though since you (collectively) did, I do ask you or anyone else to consider one aspect of Gestapo M.O. -- that of looking with great suspicion on anything that deviates from the "party line." The fact that the LDS leadership in the last 1/2 to 3/4 century years has demonstrated an especially narrow view of former-day doctrines and practices -- things contrary to the current LDS doctrinal paradigms

admittedly places people apparently such as yourselves between a real rock and a hard place -- or should -- unless you consider that the risks to your eternal salvation "acceptable" and run contrary to 'the brethren" to have a "forum" to discuss these things (in anonymity, of course) that one wouldn't discuss in Gospel Doctrine class on Sunday. No, this did not happen 'suddenly" as you say.

Please forgive me if I seem to lump all of you together, as from my admittedly short exposure to your web site, as in your apparent requirements for lockstep I am not yet able to discern very well any individual differences among those who post as it concerns the specific points I raise here. "Blithe" would be a pretty good adjective, though that is my own perception or opinion of how it seems.

I asked you in my first post to be up front on just what was the deal with this. But while I did appreciate "Nighthawk's" response, and I agree it was well-intended, it still did not answer the contradiction in my mind, which I have elaborated on here. But to be honest, for me there isn't likely to be a satisfactory response from you, and your religious paradigms simultaneously remain intact.

So for the record, here is where I am. I was born and raised LDS, a great-great grandson of Parley Pratt. One of the dormitories at the Provo MTC is named after my grandfather, Rey L. Pratt (another is named after Parley). I grew up with and maintain an abiding conviction and testimony of the Restored Gospel, and it has been and remains the shaping foundation for my life and my life paradigms. I grew up mostly in Utah, completed the 4-year LDS seminary program, served a mission in Tahiti (1972-1974), graduated from BYU, taught for over two years at the MTC, served a career as an Air Force officer, served in many teaching capacities in the LDS Church, primary teacher, Elder's Quorum instructor, EQ Counselor, and EQ President, Bishopric Executive Secretary, Choir Director, and now as you would construe it, "Apostate."

But I am more active and involved now than ever in the Restored Gospel, church activity, gospel teaching and instruction, gospel writing, work for the dead, temple officiator, leader, husband and father. I also have two dedicated, experienced, and well-read wives. It was a very difficult and soul-searching decision that I made nearly twelve years ago, and provoked me to investigate my beliefs and motives at the most fundamental level. It also entailed rejection by many former friends and family members (I refer you to the Sixth Lecture on Faith, and Matthew chapters 10 & 19), which has been a trial. But I can assure you that my motives were to believe and live the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as it was delivered to the Prophet of the Dispensation, Joseph Smith, to please God, and to seek salvation and exaltation.

You have a right to disagree with my decisions and their correctness, just as I have a right to disagree with you on what has become of the LDS Church and its authority. But for certain now there is no contradiction in what I believe and study, what I practice, what is sustained as the Truth and Doctrine by my Church now, and what was formerly believed and practiced in the LDS Church. Nor were my motives in my decisions or actions in any way so vile as many others wrongfully ascribe to or to us often in mocking tones.

At this point, I really doubt that you will post my response, but I mean no contention nor disrespect -- at least any more than what usually happens when the Lord's servants declare what he requires of them:

Of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel as the Lord delivered it unto Joseph I bear witness, as well as the reality of the above scriptural passage.

I really don't care to post much at different web sites. But I was surprised at the policies of your web site, and felt to respond to this. I won't pretend to what I can't with conviction subscribe to as far as joining, for what for me would likely be pointless discussions. [..]

Sincerely,

John

Source 1: BRM to Eugene England Letter is available in many sources. I also have a photocopy. The specific quote mentioned may also be found in Wikipedia, under BRM.
Source 2: The Colton Quote is available in many quote digests, including online, by searching his full name.

Message Edited...
Persephone: All Discussion is public. Thread was way too long, keep it short please.

Access Mature Lds Get He Rants John

Another example of why this site has rules, structure and a means for Discussion where things can truly be Discussed openly by those capable of being open - open minded as the key here. People want things 'open' but are of themselves not that way at all. They stand from the outside and make all kinds of pre-judgements about what should and should not be and then accuse others of the same.

What is more amazing, and I have said this many times before, we have so many Public accessible Boards (LDS related included) here with tens of thousands of items to read, yet they are emotional about not being able to be where there is something hidden, that they cannot see?

When I enter a Topic I want to feel that I can learn something about the Topic and not read the aimless rants of complaints, and narcissistic-like tones in a message. If you come across something you do not like simply move on - where do people get the time to go on about such things they deem themselves to be "pointless"? I can't imagine going to a site, seeing I cannot access something because they have establish rules and then cry like a baby over it, yet I notice this is a common thing on the net.

John Rants Because He Cannot Get Lds Mature Access Studies Doctrine Mormon

I just read John's reply. Maybe someone can explain it to me since I'm kind of new here but he's saying he has two wives (polygamist) isn't the lds boards (including the mature one) reserved for those members of the lds church? If so, I dont get his rants at all you know what I am saying? I also saw some threads about FLDS around or even here in this board he can post freely, no? I dont get what's the problem at all.

Access Mature Lds Get He Rants John

I honestly believe he is a very maturely minded, a bit longwinded and not LDS, but still I feel he handled his point very well. We need more board member with his state of mind.

Access Mature Lds Get He Rants John

What point was that?

State of mind? For what purpose? Elaborate please.

John Rants Because He Cannot Get Lds Mature Access

Sorry, what I was saying is I was impressed by how he handled his "Rant". First there wasn't any real venom, he was upset that he couldn't be on the mature forms, but he did not write a message overly angry or equivalent. Second he presented his case very well, much better than I could. There is one thing I would have changed though and that part about his two wives. Lastly more to your question, what I meant by state of mind was simply that he handled writing a mature post better than many other members/guest who write a fair post but not great post, me included. Did I explain it any better?

John Rants He Get Lds Mature Access

You were impressed that he:

1. Thinks we form the wrong interpretation of how we should use our own site, and even seeks to define for us what he deems a forum should be used for? In other words he has the better understanding of how we should run things here.

You were impressed that he:

2. Is clearly not LDS, yet wants access to LDS Doctrine section, and even though you see he responds that LDS leadership is narrow you think he will add a positive experience to that section because you feel he is 'mature'?

You were further impressed that his:

Message was no longer about the KOZ2 site and so off topic that I had to move it to it's own Thread here because otherwise it could not be Posted?

Now since you think that he presented his case well are you in fact saying that John deserves Mature LDS status? How do you ascertain John's maturity from one Post? Maybe you meant to say that he was eloquent in how he represented himself as I do not see 'maturity' represented here.

Lastly, I can indeed tell you that we do NOT need such Members here, because one of the first rules of this Community is that our Rules and Policies are NOT up for debate.

John Rants He Get Lds Mature Access Mormon Doctrine Studies