LDS on Finding Truth

Phoebe Ann said:

Of course, peacemakers are blessed. Is everyone a child of God, only peacemakers, or only those who belong to the Church of the Firstborn?

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. What's your understanding?

Phoebe Ann said:

Has skylark made peace occur on this thread?

Click to expand...

Did Christ make peace occur during his ministry?

Phoebe Ann said:

or did she just take sides and involve herself in the fracas?

Click to expand...

She showed herslef to be a lover of peace, long-suffering, and patience. She sided with truth. Others sided with their pride, which was their choosing, not hers. That's my opinion.

Christ was crucified for his peacemaking. Skylark was reproved for hers. I'd say she's on a good path.

Phoebe Ann said:

Has skylark made peace occur on this thread? or did she just take sides and involve herself in the fracas?

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to "take sides." I didn't post what I did in order to try to stir up a hornet's nest. I posted what I did in good faith, and it wasn't intended to be for or against LDS or non-LDS. During the time that I have posted here my views have changed about making public comments about people that one suspects are sockpuppets. I was posting according to my conscious and according to how I thought as Christians we should treat others. Believe it or not, I did think that it might lead to a more peaceful forum and a better discussion.

I am sorry that you found my post to be so offensive. My intentions were good. If you wish to discuss what you see as shortcomings in my personality or character, then please feel free to drop me a pm.

Phoebe Ann said:

If you had PM'd the member(s) you felt were in error in the first place, it would have been much more thoughtful.

Click to expand...

It would then likewise be more thoughtful to communicate via PM when one suspects that another member is posting on two accounts, rather than sounding a trumpet about it in-forum. Wouldn't you agree?

Phoebe Ann said:

No, because it is dishonest for alfonsobonetti to pretend that he never posted under the username Obiwan (see historical evidence on this forum).

Marion G. Romney, "“We Believe in Being Honest”", Ensign, Nov. 1976, 36

Gordon B. Hinckley, "We Believe in Being Honest", Ensign, Oct. 1990, 2

Click to expand...

So if a person is being dishonest (a sin) in-forum, it can be spoken of publicly, but if a person is trying to be a peacemaker (a beattitude) in-forum, that should be handled privately... does that sum it up? And what about if one suspects something about another's personality, based on the latter's "pseudo-moderating style"? Is that something that falls under the "sin" category, which makes it elligible for public comment, or does it fall under the "beattitude" category, which would indicate that it should be handled privately? I'm trying to get a handle on where you think the lines should be drawn.

Phoebe Ann said:

If you had PM'd the member(s) you felt were in error in the first place, it would have been much more thoughtful.

Click to expand...

My comment wasn't to a particular person, but to the forum at large.

FWIW, I did pm a member here some time ago about some concerns relating to what I wrote. But since it was a private message, and only intended for that person, you were not aware of it. At that time, my comment was directed to this particular person, and not to the forum at large.

This time my comment was directed to the forum at large. It isn't the only time the the issue of one person using multiple accounts has come up, and I wanted to share some general comments. They were given in good faith, and not intended to offend anyone, make anyone feel bad, stir up a hornets nest, or cause someone to imply negative things about my personality or character. It was a suggestion from one Christian to other Christians about how I thought that we might better serve Christ. It was intended to uplift, not to tear down.

Phoebe Ann said:

TasteForTruth said:

And what about if one suspects something about another's personality, based on the latter's "pseudo-moderating style"? Is that something that falls under the "sin" category, which makes it elligible for public comment, or does it fall under the "beattitude" category, which would indicate that it should be handled privately? I'm trying to get a handle on where you think the lines should be drawn.

Click to expand...

I didn't think skylark had sinned. But since she chose to go public with her advice, I also did the same.

Click to expand...

What exactly was your advice when asking me what my posting tells me about my "personality?" What does my posting tell you about my "personality?" And how is this "advice" (of which I am still unaware) helpful or useful to me?



ETA: I am going to include my last post in with this one since I know that it isn't uncommon fore the first message to be missed when posting two messages in a row with the first one at the bottom of the page. I hope that all will excuse my indulgence.

Phoebe Ann said:

If you had PM'd the member(s) you felt were in error in the first place, it would have been much more thoughtful.

Click to expand...

My comment wasn't to a particular person, but to the forum at large.

FWIW, I did pm a member here some time ago about some concerns relating to what I wrote. But since it was a private message, and only intended for that person, you were not aware of it. At that time, my comment was directed to this particular person, and not to the forum at large.

This time my comment was directed to the forum at large. It isn't the only time the the issue of one person using multiple accounts has come up, and I wanted to share some general comments. They were given in good faith, and not intended to offend anyone, make anyone feel bad, stir up a hornets nest, or cause someone to imply negative things about my personality or character. It was a suggestion from one Christian to other Christians about how I thought that we might better serve Christ. It was intended to uplift, not to tear down.

Phoebe Ann said:

If someone is publically trying to fool the members here, why shouldn't that be public?

Click to expand...

Who said that it shouldn't be public? Not me. I'm not telling people what they ought and ought not to say in public. But if calling someone on the carpet for posting on duplicate accounts is OK for public discussion, why is a call for moderation in judgment, and showing mercy toward the troubled—why is a call for those things not OK for public discussion?

Phoebe Ann said:

I didn't think skylark had sinned.

Click to expand...

How were we to know what you meant? You made a public insinuation that her pseudo-moderating style revealed something about her personality, but you did not offer what it was. You left if up to everyone's imagination. As for me, I got the impression that whatever it was that it might reveal to you, it wasn't something you approved of. Or did I misread the cues? Were you thinking that her pseudo-moderating style revealed something positive and praiseworthy about her personality?

Phoebe Ann said:

But since she chose to go public with her advice, I also did the same.

Click to expand...

So why is her advice better delivered in private, but yours is OK for public display? Help me understand where the line should be drawn.

Phoebe Ann said:

Topic: LDS on Finding Truth

1. The first step in gaining a testimony is to want one (see 1 Nephi 2:16).

2. We must ask our Heavenly Father to help us gain a testimony (see D&C 42:51).

3. We must want a testimony enough that we are willing to work to gain one (see Ether 12:6).

4. We will enjoy our testimony as we study and grow and increase in our knowledge of the truth (see John 8:32).

5. We must care for our most prized possession, our testimony, by keeping the commandments of our Heavenly Father (see Mosiah 2:41, Alma 32:41).

Family Home Evening Resource Book, Family Home Evening Lessons, 16: Gaining a Testimony through the Holy Ghost, 69

Click to expand...

The 1st & 3rd points I find interesting. Never really thought of it that way. When I was younger, I never had a testimony, and looking back, I guess I didn't really want one either.

The 5th point, as I understand it, means if you don't keep the commandments, then you may lose your testimony. Which I suppose can happen, but not always. Well that's JMO.

BUMP!

RufustheRed said:

Are you saying that you never posted on this forum under the name Obiwan?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thanks.

Rufus

AKA McGregor & Sven

Click to expand...

I've already answered, and most of this thread is the sad result of that conspiracy theory, nothing but petty bickering here.

As to the OP, LDS continually seek out the truth of all things, out of the best books, and from other things that are virtuous and of good report. The misrepresentations of mormonism and mormons in this thread or forum by those who aren't mormon is not mormonism and is not reality, but is instead of the minds alone of those self same people who promote said falsehoods. Their passions of trying to destroy other ideology's that good people of the earth, and more importantly other believers in the Christ, believe makes them blind to the perversions they have embraced in relation to those ideology's. They become the servants of another master, instead of the Most High. For only the other one endeavors to nourish disunity, anger, hatred, misunderstanding, and the perversion of meanings.

If mormons and mormonism were accurately represented, and people simply disagreed, then that would be of honor, and there would be no problem. However, that is not what is happening in most cases. Mormons know who we are and what we believe, but most here do not, only thinking they do, and as a result fall victim to breaking the commandments of God by their actions.

alfonsobonetti said:

I've already answered, and most of this thread is the sad result of that conspiracy theory, nothing but petty bickering here.

Click to expand...

Don't you see? The more you say, the more you write...it's like your own fingerprint, your own DNA, Obi. Repetitions of denials don't make them any less dishonest.

alfonsobonetti said:

RufustheRed said:

Are you saying that you never posted on this forum under the name Obiwan?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thanks.

Rufus

AKA McGregor & Sven

Click to expand...

I've already answered ...

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I must have missed that post. Can/will you tell me which one it is?

Thanks,

Rufus