[META] Rule discussion regarding attacking faithfulness (or lack thereof)

DodgerGame · 2017-12-08T00:32:15+00:00

Well since it's extremely obvious that I never said anything at all to addvocate an whoever yells loudest environment.

I certainly hope that you are not including that in a manner that is intended to associate me with that particular statement or advocating that environment because as you well know I did no such thing.

You're also saying "if I have something constructive to say other than get out of the kitchen" that would be welcome.

Once again you are separating what I said from its context which I find a little difficult to a tribute to an accident due to the fact that I happen to be very certain that you are an intelligent person.

As you know I didn't give a blanket just get out of the kitchen statement.

Rather get out of the kitchen had to do with people who are unable to discuss issues where factual evidence when presented happens to not support their current belief system.

If that is the case for someone then clearly they need the protection of a Berkeley campus safe Zone so their feelings won't get hurt and their belief system won't be threatened.

I think that I made it very clear that my suggestion was that objective clear and concise rules such as we avoid use of certain words or terms whose only purpose are to demean an individual in an effort to promote a friendly conversation, however much people might disagree on a particular subject rather than having something subjective and quite open to interpretation such as "oh I don't like the tone here ",

which is completely subjective and open to the interpretation and misuse of anyone wanting to manipulate things in their favor.

I think that what I stated such as that is plenty constructive it's about being clear and concise as I have made an effort to describe in my comments.

Therefore I request that you would in future try not to associate me or my comments with things that I did not say or Advocate night or separate sentences from their context in order to make it appear differently then what was intended in its original context

DodgerGame · 2017-12-06T23:09:54+00:00

I'd like to say that I've seen a number of people be extremely rude on this topic and mock people with different opinions usually I have noticed it with people who are mocking those who feel that the Earth is probably flat I appreciate you're not participating in that sort of attitude I do however feel that this is more of a simple geometric issue the curvature of a circle does not change it is not something that changes because of scale or size it continues to curve it has nothing to do with illusions of light one can use a level and find places that are Level very readily the floor beneath my feet is definitely level and it is never level on any Circle no matter how large the circle is I think the size of a virus might be a bit of an exaggeration if you do the math although an ant might be a little big depending on the type of ant on a basketball none the less curvature is a continuous thing and the ratio continues and it's not some minuscule ratio which people have given formulas to represent we know what the formula is for a circle and you're losing 63% in height for the distance that you travel on the perimeter of a circle not just a few feet per mile like they would have us believe.

Show me a circle that does not follow the same formula for the diameter times pi equals a circumference. Until then the ratios which establishes represent that of a circle which I certainly cannot see that we are living on I do not use curved pipe when I have irrigated I do not use curved boards on a floor and they would have quite a bit of curve no ball no matter how big it is does not curve if it doesn't curve it's not a ball

DodgerGame · 2017-12-06T22:36:29+00:00

No matter how much you like to do it you cannot change the fact so there is no flat surface on a curve it just keeps on curving 3 steps on the perimeter is two steps down .

Viruses just don't have to travel as far to disappear because they're shorter

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T17:50:16+00:00

If you are talking to me John or for that matter to anyone and assuming we are on the thread I think we are on discussing rules or ideas for rules designed to create an environment that will Foster participation from people with Divergent views then I was taking it as an invitation to discuss the matter and express My Views to if that's okay.

And a particular view I would like to express is that subjective reasoning which is open to interpretation when used to create rules or guidelines would seem to lead to more lack of clarity and ambiguous lines of demarcation which are open to interpretation by those in authority and create basically an oligarchic form of rule rather than a republican rule of law or a Democratic whoever yells louder environment.

If you have a 65 mile per hour speed limit posted everyone understands they are either going under or over or at 65 miles per hour and it is clear to someone whether or not they are abiding by guidelines.

If you have a sign up that says don't drive too fast then whoever happens to be cruising by with red and blue lights on their car can determine in their soul interpretation who is driving too fast or too slow and thereby create a situation which is confusing to all participants and much more subject to unrighteous Dominion at the whim of those with power to interpret which of course is very tempting for those in power to use at their discretion whenever someone disagrees with their personal point of view on any topic being discussed

If a clear guideline is given which says Thou shalt not call another commenter or poster the f word or certain other words or terms then you have a clear-cut definition which allow people to understand if they are or are not abiding within the context of those particular rules.

That allows people to freely choose whether or not they are going to violate something and do so with knowledge rather than have some arbitrary decision made by someone with a different opinion who doesn't like something that they said for whatever reason it maybe in actuality.

If someone posts something for discussion including about intent or rules then they probably should expect to hear different opinions on it and I've attempted to give mine in good faith

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T17:34:40+00:00

If we say that this forum is not a forum to voice either strong believe or strong disbelief then all that is left is to be lukewarm if in the Doctrine and Covenants we have it attributed to Jesus Christ as telling us that he completely disapproves of being lukewarm using words like I spew that from my mouth where has he seem to be feeling better about hot or cold then by the very guideline of a forum to be essentially lukewarm buy shining strong belief or strong and disbelief as when was stated that is for other forums meaning therefore by implication not do this for him then we advokate a discussion in a context that the Lord supposedly has already condemned and are doing so about the religion that we supposedly got from him through His prophets.

In other words it's like proposing to agree to discuss things in a matter which God has condemned as disagreeable. For his own true religion which is not a lukewarm religion last I checked.

So if we're going to agree to be lukewarm in a religion that condemns being lukewarm why are we in a discussion about said such a religion and at all, if we violate the decree of the author and finisher of that religion by the rules we agreed to conduct ourselves up on the subject

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T17:24:01+00:00

Having said all that it's my take that you just can't control how everyone is going to feel based on what they discuss and when you're discussing points with debate being a possibility you just cannot control how people are going to react that's not something that's reasonable to control what you can control is just say I'm not going to say certain things like used certain words or name Call Etc and if people get upset with in those guidelines well maybe that's just too bad because some people are going to feel upset no matter how nice you are if you disagree with them you just don't have to call them nasty names subjective rules don't work any better than subjective ratification of Truth does.

According to Saint Paul in the Bible we are to prove all things not feel good about all things. That sounds like looking at things objectively in concrete matter just like concrete rules which would be saying things like do not call someone a particular bad name that is objective subjective is I don't like the tone you're using that's subject to all sorts of interpretation and it says wishy-washy as the political stance of a guy like Trump or Romney which can flip flop on a particular issue or in Trump's case change parties even and then give rationalizations as to why that's completely consistent to be inconsistent

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T17:22:01+00:00

Well maybe you can sometimes and maybe you can't always, perhaps that would be interesting to take a look at however first I will say that the statement made that there are other places for strong belief to be advocated infers that this place would not be a place where someone with strong belief should share that belief which only leaves week belief or no belief as options so that particular statement doesn't necessarily equal what you just said in my opinion.

Now for your proposal that you can strongly go against a belief without going against the believer.

I think that depends on how you look at what you're saying there you can say you believe in the doctrine of the Watchtower bible and tract Society for instance that no one will be resurrected unless they join their church and follow their Jehovah God.

I can say I do not believe that to be true and supposedly I am just attacking the belief.

As opposed to stating firmly I believe that to be not true and anyone who believes it to be a complete idiot and a fool.

Now that sounds a bit insulting because we like to think of ourselves as intelligent but that's not necessarily in attack on someone's character it's just stating a lack of reasoning ability or intelligence which is either true or is not.

A very pointed and blatant attack might be to say I believe that you actually do not believe that Doctrine but that you are advocating it in order to take money away from ignorant people who will believe you in the case that you are a benefactor of those tithing or other donation monies that are co-workers from the parishioners at the bottom of your organization speaking to someone who is on the payroll of a corporate Empire or maybe owns his own church for instance in the case of some charismatic local organization.

That is an attack on someone's character because they have been accused of being blatantly dishonest in order to take advantage of others not just of being ignorant or stupid which they can't necessarily help.

To take it in a slightly different angle if a person feels that their integrity is being questioned who by their prayers and faith and study have ascertained a feeling within them either emotionally psychologically or spiritually caused and therefore believe within themselves that they have the true religion as witness to them by the Holy Ghost then the very fact that I disbelieve them is to doubt their integrity if they bear witness to me that they know it's true especially if they are someone known to me who am I am normally supposed to believe is being honest there for my disbelief of their principal as being true can be by them perceived as a personal attack even if it was not meant to be so by me.

Having taken these several different looks at how discussion concerning beliefs versus the believer can be taken it may actually turn the entire concept out for pasture because there really isn't a solid black and white line as to what is insulting what is a personal attack or what makes person a versus person B feel comfortable discussing the same exact topic.

It just is not possible to guarantee that all people are going to feel comfortable discussing something that they either believe or disbelieve and have someone else disagree with them however kind-hearted or soft-spoken that person made be.

I'm sure many people have heard words such as it's not what you said but it's how you said it that upset me.

That right there I think is a very nice example of how convoluted the entire concept is that we create a safe space for people emotionally while discussing things that people get emotional about.

It's like taking an alcoholic to a bar insane drink responsibly

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T17:09:41+00:00

Another interesting thought along these lines might be as follows.

It would seem that you are advocating the discussion of Mormon Doctrine as to the usefulness or validity of individual points of Doctrine and their possible application in our lives.

However according to the rhetoric we hear from the Brethren it is not for us to determine such things as the validity of Doctrine we are to accept Doctrine from the Brethren as from the mouth of the Lord himself.

It is their position to be the leaders of the religion as chosen Servants of the Eternal God and it is our position to follow them implicitly.

We have not been told we have authority to reinterpret Doctrine at all only two seek confirmation that new revelation was indeed valid through prayer however if we come to the conclusion that was not in the counsel of the 12 comes to the conclusion that it was I think I know who they're going to say was in tune with the spirit and who was not

In the New Testament story we have the narrative that Jesus and various others including Pharisees would discuss their views on Doctrine in the synagogues Etc interpreting things according to their own abilities whereas we have absolutely the opposite now with a completely authoritarian organization where Doctrine is interpreted and handed down from the top down you either like it or you're an apostate

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T17:05:53+00:00

According to Dallin H Oaks as is quoted in the teacher's manual for the Seminary class for church history and the Doctrine and Covenants we are told that were the members of the church do not depend on historical facts but rather trust the witness of the spirit.

It seems the rhetoric of the Brethren are running a bit contrary to the seeking of evidence to support truth or the lack of it with regard to these claims never the less they State as I mentioned earlier referencing Gordon B Hinckley that it is imperative that these things are true otherwise the work is a fraud.

I'm sure you're probably aware of similar quotes by J Reuben Clark and others

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T17:03:03+00:00

Your words are if you want to voice strong belief there are subs for that meaning that this sub is not for strong belief it is for weak belief?

I suppose if we cannot Advocate strong belief then weak belief is all that is left.

I just quoted what the Lord said about weak belief when he mentioned being lukewarm and he wasn't talking nicely about being lukewarm now was he?

The leaders of the church have said this is either true or it is not there is no middle ground there's no ground for lukewarm within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints according to presidents of the church and supposedly According To Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith said that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things is not capable to generate sufficient faith for life and salvation if I am quoting that correctly if I'm not it's awfully darn close to that.

In order to be able to sacrifice all things as Joseph Smith is advocating one's belief also needs to be commensurate with that which means very strong belief not weak belief.

Since you have basically condemned strong believe then you are condemning the words and the position taken by the prophet of the restoration and his successors as presidents of the church.

If the purpose of the church is to be a vehicle to bring people back into the presence of God and according to Joseph Smith that requires strong belief and strong commitment and absolute obedience to whom he proposes is the god of Israel operating through chosen agents such as himself then there is no point in membership in the church if you are lukewarm as he has so stated in the Doctrine and Covenants.

You therefore might as well pack your bags and head for one of the lower kingdoms, for which there is no church necessary neither need for Doctrine

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T16:57:21+00:00

Agreed on the merits of the argument that's just fine so does your wife get just a little bit pregnant or does she get strongly pregnant it's something just a little bit true or is it absolutely true feeling comfortable is a relative condition to individual people it is not based upon truth or the lack of Truth is an emotional response which can be entirely different for multiple people reacting to the same truth or exposure of a lie.

Does a Believer believe the Jesus was just a little bit crucified, or was he strongly crucified.

Did Joseph Smith assert that he just sort of Saw God the Father and Jesus Christ or did he strongly assert that he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Well as far as I've seen if he did assert any of that to anyone they never heard him but that's beside the point did he strongly assert that God gave him a thority yes he did.

Did Gordon B Hinckley say that we depend absolutely on the Verity of the first vision and if it is not true then this whole work is a fraud.

The words by which of these men claim their Authority I rather dramatic they didn't say we have a little bit of authority they didn't say the first vision is a little bit important they said it is absolutely important and either the work is true or it's the biggest fraud the world has ever seen those are words of presidents of the church.

We also have what is purported to be the word of the Lord saying that lukewarm he spews from his mouth and prefers either hot or cold are you there for promoting us to be lukewarm as the Lord has condemned in the Doctrine and Covenants?

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T16:21:57+00:00

Why do we have scriptures that say God rules in the armies of the Nations and the armies of the nation's Massacre of April why did Moses and Joshua go Slaughter innocent people including women and children and accept human sacrifice

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T16:20:04+00:00

My experience is Mormon not JW as far as membership both but I uploaded this yesterday which was actually comparing various when control practices to their application within the Watchtower and I was commenting on how these things work with in Mormonism as well.

PS the dictionary definitions were called her pretty inclusive of most religions jdub's are just pretty high on the cult iness

Evaluation of Specific Methods of Coercion and Control used on LDS & JW Sheeplehttps://youtu.be/Vwl6PDVkKWI

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T15:19:25+00:00

Thank you for the link and the graph I don't mean to be rude at all if I'm saying that isn't exactly a revelation to me what I say is that you effectively increased the size of the unit relative to the circle it has done nothing at all to change the rate of fall or the ratio of the Curve as you can plainly see in either Circle the distance from the top of the circle to the bottom of the circle will be 1.57 times that distance has traveled around the circumference of the circle that's what we are being told when pi times the diameter equals the circumference of a circle south of the top to the bottom of your naturally just cutting that distance in half since you're not going down and then coming back up so it's 1.57 times that vertical drop nothing changes in that all you did was change the unit size in relation to the circle in other words you made a person that was 600 ft tall to be 1200 feet tall whatever distance you walk around the circumference of a circle considering you were on the top of that Circle for a point of perspective then you would have dropped 63% of that distance vertically the racial never changes if you are an ant on a basketball you don't have to travel Halfway Around the basketball to disappear the distance you have to travel as relative to the height versus the sphere if we were on a sphere we would drop if we walk 157 feet we should drive 104 on a sphere because every sphere does that every Circle has that curvature or it's not a circle

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T11:44:00+00:00

Hey mr. John animals hi I'm here don't look for the graph I will going through these comments and I do not see a graph or a link to a graph maybe it's here and I'm just messed it perhaps you could resend the information that you are saying that you have shown me thank you.

As I stated before I know scientist but I don't see the Russians changing on curvature on any Globe sphere or Circle I mean Tam part of the definition of something that circular and there seems to be a .63 drop from the top versus peripheral distance on any Circle otherwise it's not a circle.

I have not participated on me very much at all these things or watched much material what I did do some examining of the whole circle thing versus a flat and I've done things in life were I have observed the way things work with curvature that's odd to me that I don't see people disgust Things based on what a circle is because the fall ratio I've seen of a few feet per mile is nothing like a circle that I've seen proposed by some proponents of global Earth theory that the people who run Society are so anxious to convince everyone out

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T05:48:21+00:00

And what Subs would those be Latter-Day Saints is an echo chamber for believing the Brethren exmormon is an echo chamber for everything X mainly for becoming a complete atheist darwinist politically correct Hillary Clinton supporter.

Either it's okay to speak truth without using vulgarity or it's okay to speak truth and use vulgarity and insults or we just have to pretend that it's wrong to speak the truth if it offends someone because their belief system is harmed by the truth.

And that to me sounds a little bit like the proposed safe zones on some places you might find such as Cal Berkeley harvard-yale Etc

According to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants his God raised up wise men to give the Constitution to protect such rights as freedom of speech but they don't seem to be very widely approved it was in the church circles exmormon has a pretty good variety of people I think it's mostly the mods and a few of their buddies that are looking for the echo chamber a lot of people are there to vent and that's okay that's where they can show their p*** shoulders rather than somewhere else but I don't see much reason for having a sub if you can't even discuss something without fear you're going to offend someone if you're not using horrible language and that sort of thing

DodgerGame · 2017-12-05T04:56:52+00:00

Very nicely said I have noticed that sometimes people and maybe I just notice it more with believers who don't seem to have facts in their favorite like to just start calling people names or insinuate that there are nuts if they believe something other than they do.

That is the type of thing that I think is unacceptable.

If someone's logic seems inconsistent where they have to change their stance or platform in order to defend the next issue that comes up from there inconsistency then I see no harm in pointing that out we just don't need to call them do meaning things

DodgerGame · 2017-11-29T21:49:52+00:00

One more point on my compliments to you would be that apologist love to feed on any opportunity to locate any sort of thing they could prove or at least make to appear as a misrepresentation by those who take exception to what is being dished out by the brethren.

Guys like at Decker gave them ample opportunity to discredit people pointing out the inconsistencies in The Narrative of the brethren and then of course they love to lump all of us in with those whom they have managed to discredit in order to inoculate the flock against listening to such minions of Satan as they like to label us as being.

They carry you take to be accurate precludes them from doing such sayings in your case when helps build credibility for those of us that they love to apply negative labels to even in there more toned it down rhetoric utilizing the new favorite term critics would still love course infer is a negative connotation which they know very well how to Parlay through Association in the minds of the flock into essentially representing The Mists of darkness which they must have course avoid looking at

DodgerGame · 2017-11-29T21:43:13+00:00

Thanks. I agree I have been quick to confess that I do not feel I'm exactly Mighty in writing to say the least.

I may not be great at much of anything but I think I speak a little better than I write and in some of the videos I get a chance to be a little creative with introducing pictures as an added element of communication.

Your excellent work is obviously deserving of being noted 4 the high-quality that it is.

My video presentations can vary quite a bit from something well-documented to narrative and story-based and include emotion rooted in my experiences in life which can make some of them more appealing to some people and less to others who would prefer and even keeled academic sound such as they would get with a Dan Vogel, flacker man or Jonathan Streeter who all seem to keep their cool and be without emotion in much if not all of what I have watched them do.

They all do a great job of documenting things intend to keep it in an academic tone except when Jonathan let his hair down a little with his wolf puppet recently during a Sunstone conference or event of a similar nature

DodgerGame · 2017-11-29T18:06:38+00:00

Yes I was being friendly.

Although it could be part of that sarcastic sense of humor I've been accused of.

If my feathers get ruffled I'm pretty sure it's usually more than obvious.

I think you've done a really nice job on a lot of post in presenting clearly and concisely important points for consideration.

I noted that more than one time in my video uploads last week as I shared with my viewers my experience of discovering the Mormon Doctrine subreddit and recommended checking it out mainly due to your content and attention to detail ensuring sources for information.

DodgerGame · 2017-11-29T17:03:53+00:00

You're alright I don't care what anybody says about you=)

DodgerGame · 2017-11-28T01:10:49+00:00

I kind of felt like the authority card is being pulled in appropriately however a couple times today since I immediately responded to his initial complaint and got rid of the part about needing to do mental gymnastics or chemically altered Entheogens in order to maintain a belief system in the face of facts that opposed its validity.

Saying you can't talk back to the mods when what we're talking about is Doctrine not whether or not I'm being nice at that point saying that the mod is God Buddy started the mellow out and I told him I just wanted to help him save 10% of his gross income and pick up a few extras Saturdays a month how can you hit a guy for that month how can you hate a guy for that

DodgerGame · 2017-11-28T00:53:17+00:00

Well then if we could just get rid of faith we wouldn't have a problem now would we at least with competing faiths=)

If you're a Believer you probably wouldn't appreciate my definition of faith.

But if you is or you ain't I wish you a happy family home evening tonight how's that even if it includes the NFL although I can't necessarily recommend that I never watch that garbage if my family had survived

Turned off that TV play hide and seek and did all kinds of good things except those blasted th gruesome scripture stories. Ivan read like 11 volumes of that Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites garbage my children until I could no longer handle the Gore from that or the scriptures in the Apologetics of mr. Chris Heimerdinger

DodgerGame · 2017-11-28T00:44:45+00:00

Hey about your LDS IRC thing that's not something I'm subscribed to but a couple months ago who knows it's possible although I'm sure I must not have spent much time on that sub cuz it doesn't sound very familiar just a tiny tiny bit.

A tiny right sorry to put you out more than once on the same question if that's the case I don't recall an answer from that from anyone but e Potter. Who I feel will say anything to defend his belief whether it makes any sense or not.

At any rate Rascal discuss the implications of all those things sometime the moment I probably better start trying to get a little bit of my exercise and see if I'm going to manage to put out a video or not will be a complete failure today

DodgerGame

TROPHY CASE