Conference tecrus::mormonism

    To answer the question you have asked, I would say yes.  But then
    I would like to qualify that.  NOTES is different than a regular
    face to face conversation.  If you read the NOTES documentation
    about half the book is more on noting as a form of communication
    than the technical attributes of NOTES.  Topics can become convoluted
    very quickly.  In fact I am contributing right now by changing the
    tract of your note from "Is different views accepted [sic]"  to "Is it
    appropriate to get a note off of the subject", which I think is what
    might be causing your question in this file.   Sometimes a response
    can be related to the subject of a topic, but will create such a
    discussion it really deserves a topic of it's own referring back
    to the other discussion.  One way to stop or control convoluted
    topics is to make the topic nowrite.  This acknowledges that people
    are not intelligent or courteous enough to stick to the topic, but
    then NOTES becomes a bulletin board and one might as well use VTX.
    Now I can understand that people might be new to NOTES and time
    will see them get used to it and better at this form of communication,
    so I don't think setting topics to nowrite is the answer.  Suggestions
    and reading the doc set is.                                       
                                                                
    Or maybe I'm guessing wrong and your question is because someone sent
    you mail saying your beliefs are not welcome here in this file.
    If so you should ignore this and ignore them.  And tell me and I'll
    delete this note.                                           
    
    richard
                                                                

    
    Richard,
    
      My question is based on my reception in the other conference,and,
    since this is also a Christian based conference,i am wondering if
    i will get the same treatment here.It is also based on the response
    in the note you had on children.My response in that note was in
    reply to your questions.I responded with what i viewed to be some
    possible choices that a person has when they die,including children.
    I had a couple of people ask me whether i was talking about
    reincarnation,which i responded to.I was not looking to get a
    discussion going on reincarnation.That was part of my response to
    your question.Whether you believe what i say is true or not,does
    not determine whether it relates to the question at hand.I think
    i am aware of the topic in which i am participating,and,if i say
    something that another person doesnt think relates to it,then it
    is up to them to filter out what they can or cannot use,but,not
    to tell someone to go somewhere else,unless they totally get off
    the subject,then,it should be a polite request.So if what i am saying
    is not acceptable here,then i will have to back out.I dont want
    to cause arguments,i just want to express my views and beliefs,without
    getting run over.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    Mike,

    Anyone who chooses to participate in this conference is welcome, and we
    hope it can be a source of inspiration for all. We hope that everyone
    will follow the guidelines found in topic 1. The purpose of this
    conference, as stated in Topic 1 is: 

         The purpose of this Conference is to discuss the doctrines,
         beliefs, history, and current events in the Church of Jesus
         Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is sometimes referred as
         to the Mormon Church or the LDS Church, as well as to share
         faith promoting experiences among members of the Conference.

    Postings are most appropriate in this conference if they pertain to the
    stated purpose of the conference. If, in your view, they pertain to
    this purpose, then feel free to contribute. Topics that don't relate to
    this purpose may well be more profitably discussed in other
    conferences, such as:

		Philosophy (ex Meaning of Life) DSSDEV::PHILOSOPHY
		Religion			REGENT::RELIGION

    The guidelines of this conference also state that the beliefs of all
    who participate here are to be respected and that personal attacks are
    not appropriate. If your views diverge from those of the LDS church,
    then we ask that others show respect for your views and that they not
    criticize you in any way. 

    -- the moderators 

    Well Mike,         
    I thought that might have been the imputes for writing this topic.
    I was not implying that your note answering another about what you
    meant was in the wrong place, but any further discussion would.
    That is why I suggested that notes going on about reincarnation
    be moved to another topic.  I am disappointed, in fact, that you
    or others have not done that.  I just didn't think that diluting
    a topic about children dying was the proper place to go down a rathole
    on reincarnation or whether or not that is acceptable to LDS doctrine.
    
    So start another topic and have a good time.
    
    
                                                              

    Michael,
    
    For what it's worth, I feel it inappropriate to attack anybody
    in any notes file.  At the same time, this is a notes file where
    personal and cherished beliefs are at stake, so it is likely that
    noters will be sensitive when their beliefs are attacked, either
    explicitly or implicitly.  There is therefore a felt need to defend 
    one's beliefs here.  Usually the approach is to reason with the Bible, 
    other Scriptures, logic, other references, personal testimony, etc.
    Once one steps beyond these and begins to make personal attacks, there 
    can be no more worthwhile discussion.  I sincerly hope that you do not 
    interpret my responses as personal attacks.  I don't agree with you 
    on many issues.  But, I would take whatever steps are appropriate to 
    assure you the freedom to express your views in these notes.  If you feel
    there is good argument against my views, I am interested in hearing
    them.  I enjoy putting my views on the block as it has so far proven
    to test and strengthen my testimony.  Common beliefs are appreciated
    but not required for participation here, as far as I'm concerned.

    As to the other discussions we've had, I've really appreciated your
    comments as they have caused me to search the scriptures and the
    references so that I may adjust or reinforce my own beliefs.


    Steve

    
    
    Thank-you all for your responses.I just dont want to get ganged
    up on here,like i was in the Christian conference.Although i knew
    what the response was going to be there,and i anticipated it,after
    the experience i decided i didnt want to go that route again.
      My interest is in adding my own beliefs to whatever discussion
    is taking place,not to dispute anyone elses.I am not interested
    in proving anyone else wrong,but,to express my beliefs.I cannot
    change anyone,but,perhaps my participation will be fruitful to 
    someone who may be reading my words,and,in my view,assist in their
    progression,in some way.
      I may at times drift off from the purpose of this conference in
    my remarks,since i may express beliefs that are not considered LDS
    doctrine.I feel if i am going to be a participant here,i should
    express my whole self.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    
>        topics is to make the topic nowrite.  This acknowledges that people
>    are not intelligent or courteous enough to stick to the topic, but
    
    Re .1, he means me. I never said I was long on brains, but it was
    not my intention to be discourteous. I guess I misunderstood what
    that topic was about, specifically the question of "what becomes
    of children who die?".
    
    Apologetically,
    
     {Neal}

I've been considering and re-considering whether I should post this note or
not - and I've decided that I'm going to go ahead with it.  It's important
for me to express some of the feelings and thoughts I'm having in regards to
this conference as a whole.

When I first added this conference to my notebook, I was very excited about
it.  I thought it was so neat that there was now a way to communicate with 
other fellow DECcie Mormons, and also, it would be a good forum for people
who are not familiar with the Church to learn more about it.

Lately, though, I've been feeling a little disillusioned by the whole thing.
One part of me wants to participate in this conference and share some of my
ideas and feelings about the Church and gospel, but there's another part of
me that says, "Why do it?  What good will it do?"

I realize that these are personal issues - issues that *I* need to deal with.
I also realize, though, that I'm having these feelings for a reason.  

Before I continue, I want to emphasize the fact that these are my personal
views.  This is how *I* am perceiving the situation - and my perceptions are
bound to be different from everyone else.  With this statement made, I'll
continue . . .

I sort of see a cycle going on here.  When I first joined, there was a lot
of noting activity going on.  Then Leza's note 38 got started.  She posted
her first entry for her report - a summary of the 5-6 reports to follow.
A few people felt a little discomfort about the whole thing - me included.
But as someone pointed out to me, everyone has the right to share their views
here.  And I agree with that.

However, after the first part of the report came out, it seemed like the 
Mormons flooded the conference with information (facts & figures) to counter-
act the points brought up by Leza's report.  The second part of the report
came out, and the same thing happened.  The report and the counter reaction
to the report seems *to me* to have become the core of the conference.  I
realize that there have been other side-line notes, but for the most part,
the bulk of the noting is centered around these two issues.  And that basically
has turned me off to the whole thing.


I guess my concern boils down to these questions:

1)	What is the *real* purpose of this conference?  

2)	Leza, what is the *real* purpose for your report?  I'm amazed at
	the amount of time and energy you have put into something you
	don't even believe in.  Wouldn't this time and energy be better
	spent in something you *do* believe in?  If we as Mormons are
	brainwashed, misled, misguided, totally wrong - then let us be
	brainwashed, misled, misguided, and totally wrong in PEACE.  Displaying
	the Church's dirty laundry to the public - whether your information
	is accurate or inaccurate - is not doing anyone a bit of good.  Every
	institution, whether it be a church, school, business, family, 
	individual, etc., has dirty laundry to air - so what's the point?

3)	Why do we as Mormons have to defend our beliefs and prove to the
	world that we have the answers?  We don't have to prove anything to 
	anyone.

4)	How do others in the conference feel about the *spirit* of this
	conference?  Am I the only who seems to be bugged?

I apologize if I have spoken out of place.  I did not intend to offend
anyone by this entry.  Just please help me to understand what's going on
here.

Peacefully,

Tamara_a_concerned_Saint_in_St._Louis

	 

    Thanks for expressing your feelings.  I, too, have some misgivings
    about the confrontations and rebuttals, but overall have found them
    to expand my understanding and information about the Gospel, especially
    when confronted by antagonistic anti-mormons with inaccurate
    information.
    
    I believe, however, answers should be given because non-mormos
    readers might read the inaccuracies and take them as factual.

                                                                 
    Lastly, I believe the Mormon spirit of tolerance, belief in letting
    people believe as they will, and non-criticizing is clearly shown
    in these notes.  I have privately exploded at some very harsh and
    unkind (besides untrue) words and criticisms given, but have
    appreciated the calm and un-emotional responses that have been given.
    
    So, do not give up noting.  Let the detractors come and go (for
    we know that their efforts are in vain).  Truth will prevail!
    
    Paul
    

RE: < Note 113.0 by MDVAX1::DULL >

Thanks very much for your comments. I'm glad that there are people out
there who care about the direction this conference takes. Some random
thoughts in random order: 

1) With regard to "the bulk of the noting...centered around" Leza's 
report, I think this is a consequence of the fact that Leza has the 
energy & time to put in volumes and volumes and others have time to 
reply with volumes and volumes. Unless and until more people find the
time and impetus to put in their own volumes and volumes, we will be
dwarfed by the things Leza brings up. 

Also, 'volume' does not equal 'value.' The contributions to this
conference range from very valuable to deeply insulting to eminently
ignorable. If you find something to be unappealing, there is 
always the "Next Unseen' key. 

2) With regard to the plea to "let us be brainwashed, misled,
misguided, and totally wrong in PEACE....We don't have to prove
anything to anyone.", well, I think that if non-members have
questions, we have a responsibility to respond. If the questions have
been elaborately thought out, then so much the better. 

The issue, though, is whether we also have a responsibility to 
sponsor an electronic bash-fest. Personally, I would say 'no.' Aside 
from whether or not it is a waste of time, I don't like how it creates 
the false impression that all Mormons do is offense/defense. 

3) I happen to believe that we could come up with an answer to every
last objection, no matter how silly, biased, or picayune. We can do
this because indeed the Church *is* true. But actually doing it does
*not* prove the Church is true. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. In
logical terms, the statement: "The Church is true, therefore we can
answer every objection" is not the same as "We can answer every
objection, therefore the Church is true." 

4) There is much that is positive about the Church that is being 
overlooked or overwhelmed by the 38.* dialogue. There are zillions of
positive things that could be discussed. But neither should we appear
as Donny-and-Marie clones :-). I would be disappointed if this conference
turned into an electronic version of the 'Ensign.' 

5) I like the idea of having this large, world-wide conference because
it permits a real-time dialogue about *issues*. So how about everyone
- this week - posting one good entry about today's issues in Mormonism? 
Like... What is it like to *be* a Mormon? 

Randomly yours,
/kevin

RE: .0 by MDVAX1::DULL                                         

>>>2)	Leza, what is the *real* purpose for your report?  I'm amazed at
>>>	the amount of time and energy you have put into something you
>>>	don't even believe in.  Wouldn't this time and energy be better
>>>	spent in something you *do* believe in?  If we as Mormons are
>>>	brainwashed, misled, misguided, totally wrong - then let us be
>>>	brainwashed, misled, misguided, and totally wrong in PEACE.  Displaying
>>>	the Church's dirty laundry to the public - whether your information
>>>	is accurate or inaccurate - is not doing anyone a bit of good.  Every
>>>	institution, whether it be a church, school, business, family, 
>>>	individual, etc., has dirty laundry to air - so what's the point?


	Not speaking for Leza, but...
    
	The point is that we both can't be right.  What you believe and I
believe are in many respects completely opposite.  Based upon what you
believe and I believe, one of us shall not reach the eternal destination
that God intended for us.  You and I both must be open minded - does the 
evidence suggest that you/I could be wrong?


	What good will it do?  You will know more about what you are
    following - and perhaps you will persuaded me that what you believe
    is right.  
    
    
    
RE: 113.2 by MILVAX::OSSLER

>>>3) I happen to believe that we could come up with an answer to every
>>>last objection, no matter how silly, biased, or picayune. We can do
>>>this because indeed the Church *is* true. But actually doing it does
>>>*not* prove the Church is true. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. In
>>>logical terms, the statement: "The Church is true, therefore we can
>>>answer every objection" is not the same as "We can answer every
>>>objection, therefore the Church is true." 

	Silly?  Biased?  Picayune?   You must be speaking of some
of the replies to many of the objections.  :)    Have you read the objections
and then the replies.  Have you noticed that some serious questions remain
unanswered?  I am not aware of any questions that are silly!  I want to
know the truth just as much as you do.  I want to be convinced that I am
either right or I am wrong.    

	It may be true, that all organizations have dirty laundry, but I
know that God's people have nothing to be ashamed of.

	So, if you haven't -- go back and read the objections and write each
one down.  Then go back and read the replies and ask yourself -- does this
make sense -- is it a clear and strong answer or is it a weak answer.  Then
read and see if there is an objection to the reply.   

	You and I stand to gain by this conference!  

    Hi Tamara,       
    
    Yes, I also share some of your concerns about this conference. I think
    anytime people decide to discuss their religious beliefs, they are
    opening up some of the most sacred, and sensitive parts of themselves
    for examination. When your beliefs are challenged, it can be
    uncomfortable. 
    
>I guess my concern boils down to these questions:
>
>1)	What is the *real* purpose of this conference?  
    
    This conference is merely a place to discuss the LDS Church and its
    beliefs. Those of us who are Mormons can share fellowship here with
    each other. Those who are not Mormons can find out more about what we
    believe. I suppose those who disagree with us can challenge our
    beliefs. 
    
    This doesn't mean that they are free to mock or ridicule our beliefs or
    anyone else's either. All who participate here are asked to respect the
    beliefs others, whether they happen to be LDS or not. 
    
>3)	Why do we as Mormons have to defend our beliefs and prove to the
>	world that we have the answers?  We don't have to prove anything to 
>	anyone.
    
    People who are sincere are seeking the truth. Pilate asked the Lord
    "What is truth?" "Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they
    were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24). Much has been said and
    written against the church that is not the truth. I do think the
    members of the church should try to see that the truth is available for
    those who are sincerely seeking it. 
    
    We can only proclaim truth, but we can seldom "prove" the truth of
    anything. To those who sincerely seek the truth, the Holy "Spirit
    manifesteth truth" (D&C 91:4). 
    
    On the other hand, "Satan seeketh to turn their hearts away from the
    truth" (D&C 78:10). This is what we should try to combat. 
        
>4)	How do others in the conference feel about the *spirit* of this
>	conference?  Am I the only who seems to be bugged?
    
    We who participate here shape the spirit of the conference. I don't
    always like the apparent "spirit" of the conference, either.
    Unfortunately, it has been a very busy time for me, and I have not been
    able of late to play as active a role as I would like in creating the
    desired spirit. Having a good spirit in the conference will only happen
    if people make it happen. So let's make it happen! 
    
    RE: 113.3 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
    
    Yes, you make a good point. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
    Saints and those who oppose it cannot both be right. 
    
    If truth is knowledge of things as they really are, were, or will be,
    then it is either true or not true that Joseph Smith was a prophet,
    that he saw God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, that Peter, James,
    and John restored the apostolic keys, that the Book of Mormon contains
    the word of God and was translated by the gift and power of God, and
    that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true
    church upon the face of the whole earth. 
    
    Have we answered all of the objections of the critics? No. Only God can
    answer them all. Only God can convince someone that these things are
    true. That is how He tests our faith, to see if we will rely on him,
    even in the face of opposition. Will we inquire of him, and seek the
    witness of the Holy Spirit, and trust it when it comes? 
    
    It seems that people who are determined to be critics will always come
    up with one more objection. And, no matter how good the answer to an
    objection, it will never be quite good enough to those who are
    determined to find fault. On the other hand, there have been many
    sincere seekers of truth who have set out to prove the church wrong,
    and have ended up embracing it as true. Brigham Young is an example of
    one such person. 
    
    I expect no one to be convinced of these things by this conference.
    They can only be convinced by God, as I have been. 
    
    In His name,
    Rich
                                                      

Hi Tammy:

I agree with what you are saying.  I like this conference because, as others 
have mentioned, we are forced to examine our beliefs and maybe study and pray
to find out how we feel about what is being discussed.

One thing I try to remember when I come across a note where someone is 
attacking the church is the thing that makes us different from everybody else.  
We can argue till we're blue in the face, but the only way anyone is going to 
become convinced of truth is when the Holy Spirit bears witness of the 
truthfullness of what is said and that witness is recognized by those present.  
Sometimes people get scared when the Holy Spirit is present because it is 
something foreign and unknown.

The other thing I like to remember regards the thought experiment which was 
described in 52.1.  We can prove that our beliefs are logical, but it takes 
more than logic for us to know what is true.

>I believe that this listening to personal feelings is key to the doctines of
>the Mormon Church (Luke 24:32, Moroni 10:3-5, D&C 8:2-3, 9:7-9).  It is 
>necessary to show the logic (Isaiah 1:18, Acts 17:2-3), but to be sufficient
>there must always be an appeal to and respect for the feelings of the heart.
>This is a place where where the Lord can speak to you.
(from 52.1)

Personally, I think it is worth it to sort thru the nonsense in this 
conference to find some of the gems which have been posted.

scott

I appreciate the replies that have been given so far.  I have a few
remarks that I would like to include re these replies:


RE:  113.2 by Kevin Ossler

I liked what you had to say about the volume issue.  I know for myself, that 
I don't have time to write volumes and volumes of material.  *If* I had a 
terminal at home, I would have more time and more of an opportunity to
participate.  Also, thanks for reminding me that "volume does not always equal
value."

I share the same feelings that we as Mormons have a responsibility to 
respond to questions posed by non-members - *if* their intent in knowing
this information is indeed sincere.  But since it is so hard for us to
discern another man's heart, we need to respond to the questions - whether
the question is sincere or not.  The person posing the question may not
always be sincere in his/her asking, but other readers of this conference may 
be sincere in hearing the response.  I guess that I just get turned off when
the Mormons *appear* to be defending themselves all the time.


RE:  113.3 by GENRAL::RINESMITH

>	Not speaking for Leza, but...
>    
>	The point is that we both can't be right.  What you believe and I
>believe are in many respects completely opposite.  Based upon what you
>believe and I believe, one of us shall not reach the eternal destination
>that God intended for us.  You and I both must be open minded - does the 
>evidence suggest that you/I could be wrong?
>

I don't think that the issue of one being right and one being wrong can be
discussed in such black-and-white terms.  I think there is truth on both
sides of the fence.  I don't believe that if 1) the Mormons are right, the
rest of the world is damned or 2) if the rest of the world is right, the 
Mormons are damned.  I could go on - but I don't want to detract from the
subject of this note.  

Your statement "The point is that we both can't be right" makes me ask the
question again:  What is the *real* purpose of this conference?  As Rich
points out in 113.4:                             
    
>    This conference is merely a place to discuss the LDS Church and its
>    beliefs. Those of us who are Mormons can share fellowship here with
>    each other. Those who are not Mormons can find out more about what we
>    believe. I suppose those who disagree with us can challenge our
>    beliefs. 
>    
>    This doesn't mean that they are free to mock or ridicule our beliefs or
>    anyone else's either. All who participate here are asked to respect the
>    beliefs others, whether they happen to be LDS or not. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the purpose here is to prove who
is right and who is wrong.  Is it the intent of Leza and other non-members
to "point [out that] we both can't be right"?  If so, this intent is not
keeping in tune with the purpose of this conference.

On a more positive note, I would like to say at this point that I personally 
have gained a lot from this conference.  There is a wealth of knowledge 
posted here - and I am always eager to learn new things about the Church.  
I have appreciated the questions from the non-members who want to understand 
more about a particular Mormon belief.  The replies to these questions have 
given me a better understanding of my own beliefs.

There's a meeting that I attend weekly, and each week we are reminded to 
"take what we want, leave the rest behind."  This saying applies here - I 
(we) should take from this conference what I (we) want, and leave the rest 
behind.

Thanks to all for allowing me to express my views.

Tamara  

Hi,
    
    I have found this conference to be very enlightening for me.  I
    have not found the opportunity or need to reply to the various notes
    and replies that have been posted, but have been an avid reader
    and have gained much from this conference so far.  In the church
    we sometimes haven't had the opportunity to hear other viewpoints
    that differ from what is taught.  Indeed, you may find many members
    have not studied out their own beliefs through the scriptures and
    through prayer, and gained a witness by the holy spirit.  I welcome
    Leza's comments and feel that I can learn more about the gospel
    when my beliefs are challenged.  We all can grow in our testimonies
    when we are "put to the fire" in respect to what we believe.
    
    I have seen times when some people have had questions about their
    beliefs and have been reluctant to discuss them with others.
    It is perhaps through this forum we can feel free to discuss our
    beliefs without fear of ridicule.  I have seen many that have become
    disillusioned with the church and become inactive  because they
    just didn't get answers to the questions they had.  It is my hope
    that this conference can be one where we all can feel free to
    share our experiences and our problems, too.  
    
          I would like to see a few of the on going problems
    we as LDS members have, discussed in this forum.  Issues such as
    activating the inactive,  integrating the new member into the 
    ward, home teaching, to name a few. I think members and non-members
    alike can gain from discussions like these.  Isn't this what
    the Gospel of Christ is all about? Serving the Lord and our fellow
    man? In these type of discussions we can enlighten one another
    and gain from others experiences. 
    
          Anyhow, Just a few thoughts for now.  God bless you all and take
    care.

    
    Kevin St Thomas    
          
    

    I too am an avid reader of this conference.  My reason for reading
    these notes is to learn more about the Mormon religion.  
    
    My wife's cousin and her family converted to the LDS church about
    10 years ago and so we hear comments about our church being corrupt,
    that we worship satan, and that our baptism is invalid.  Then when
    we ask questions, we get evasive answers.  Not a lot of positive
    input there.
    
    It is enlightening to see that Mormons have questions and uncertainties
    about their religion and that they feel free to air those concerns
    in this conference without chastisement from their fellow Mormons.
    
    This conference is certainly clearing up a lot of my questions
    regarding the Mormon church that I would not have any other
    opportunity to get.

    Re: Note 113.8 by BUFFER::ROHNERT 
    
    Welcome to the conference! I, for one would be glad to try my hand
    at answering any questions you might have. I'm sure others would
    also.
    
    In Christ,
    Rich
    

    ditto!
    
    I would *much* rather answer the sincere questions of someone who
    wants an answer rather than someone who wants to stall me until
    they can think up another question...
    
    I once saw an evangelist on campus that was preaching to the students
    and drawing quite a crowd.  I didn't agree with some of the things
    he was saying, but I had to admire the way he worked the crowd.
    He was standing on a milk crate and calling folks to repentence.
    Actually, I guess that's a fantasy that we all have, so he had my
    respect.  The crowd gathered around and were laughing and amused.
    One heckler took this man on.  He fired some doctrinal question at 
    him.  So, the evangelist opened his scriptures and proceeded to
    answer the question via the scriptures.  When the heckler could
    see that the evangelist had an answer that was concise, direct and
    founded in the scriptures he attempted to interrupt the evangelist
    with a new question attacking a different aspect of Christianity.
    Instead of abandoning the effort to answer the first question, the
    evangelist responded very wisely by asking the heckler, 'Do you
    want me to answer your question?'.  The heckler had, of course,
    no intentions of listening to an answer to the first question as
    his purpose was to confuse and embarrass the evangelist.  However,
    as it was considered socially unacceptable behavior to intentionally
    confuse and embarass a stranger in public, the heckler was tongue-tied.
    If he answered no, it would be an admission that he was guilty of
    socially unacceptable behavior and would himself suffer public
    embarrassment.  (He had already and suddenly become confused and
    the crowd had begun to turn on him for their amusement.)  If he
    answered yes, then his purposes would be foiled.  He was asked again
    if he wanted an answer to his first question.  This time the crowd
    echoed the evangelist's words.  The heckler shyed away and the
    evangelist continued to call the crowd to repentance.  I had to
    rush off to class, but if I could have stayed I feel I would have
    found my way to this brother to thank him for what he taught me.
    Though we disagreed on fundamental issues, I felt that the Lord
    did work on this man and hoped that someday our beliefs would better
    coincide.  I never saw him again, but have since gained from his
    example.
    
    
    Steve

Re: .0

Hi Tamara,

	If you read my note then you will see that I expressed then,
similar feelings to those you shared in .0  .  I am a Mormon and a
recently re committed to Centering Christ in my life.  My belief is
strong but my inclination is to seek fellowship and the association 
of those with supporting faith in Christ.  I tend to shun the glaring 
controversy and contention that makes me uncomfortable.  I avoided the 
heat of ridicule and longed for reinforcement of those with compatible 
beliefs.  

I wrote to Allen and explained to him that I felt that the conference 
format should be more one of fellowship and association like I observed
in conferences of those with similar interests like Cars or Body building.
He carefully explained to me that it was not possible to have that type 
of format on the subject of MORMONISM in an open conference like this.
It is not the moderator but the medium, NOTES, that determines the format
by its nature.   NOTES is a world wide display for DEC of its fantastic 
networking capability.  There is no way for us to have such high visibility
without encountering opposition and controversy.
  
I did not like this at first.  I have seen Allen refer to Note 241 and 242
in the IOSG::CHRISTIAN conference titled "My Beliefs as a Mormon".  The 
note 242 is for replies to 241.  I started reading 242, the one on the 
replies as I already know what Mormons believe.  There are 315 replies
and I have not finished it yet. I have seen enough to have an appreciation
for the remarkable investment of time and study that Allen made. 
( He to be one of the Three Nephites, no normal man has that much patience.)  
                                                                   
                                                                 ;-}
           
I also  have a new appreciation for the beliefs of others and the way my 
religion appears to them.   I feel that everyone interested in this conference
should read 242 in CHRISTIAN. It spawned the MORMONISM conference. Many
of the entries are carry overs from that conference and now I understand
more clearly what is being said.  
    
>I thought it was so neat that there was now a way to communicate with
>other fellow DECcie Mormons...       
    

Tamara, we both now know there is another way for DECcie Mormons to
communicate off line.  Thanks to special people like Sister Penny who
have reached out to communicate with us.  I encourage the use of this
special medium also.  Everyone I have taken the time to contact this
way, has given me good response.  There is still a lot of sharing that
we can enjoy in our conference.  
    

In Christ Love,
    -gary 
    

Tamara,

I'm glad you created this note, because I also have had concerns about this
conference.  Before creating the conference, I did a lot of thinking and
praying, because I was worried that people would use it to "bash" the
Church.  I decided to form the conference because my experience with
notes 241 and 242 in the CHRISTIAN conference indicated that most people
were asking sincere questions about the Church and only a few were "bashing".
From my viewpoint, at least, I think that the results so far with this
conference parallel those results.

My major goal for this conference is that it can be the focus for an
electronic fellowship between us and also between us and interested non-members.
I'm hoping that most LDS employees will read the conference and contribute as
the Spirit directs.  Each of us has things we can share that will strengthen
the others.  I'm also hoping that the many non-LDS who read the conference
will do so with sincere desires for understanding of our beliefs, and that
they will in turn find sincere answers and explanations.

I am concerned that so far much of the activity has been centered around
contention.  I'm hoping that the volume of positive, testimony-building
replies will far outweigh the contention.  We are cautioned by both our
modern prophets and our scriptures to not engage in contention.  This means
that we provide answers to sincere questions, but we do not engage in "endless"
attempts to prove those answers right.  That is, we explain our beliefs and then
withdraw from the discussion and let those asking the questions form their own
opinions about our beliefs.

Each person reading this conference has his or her own hopes for the conference,
and each person is responsible to contribute in such a way that those hopes
will be reached.  Those who read but do not contribute have no basis for
complaining about the direction the conference takes.

I pray that the conference will be a positive factor in all our lives, and in
the future as we look back on our activity we will be glad we participated.

With love to all in Christ,

Allen

    Tamara,
    
    This conference has at times been a source of joy to me, but.....

    I found that certain topics contained a strong spirit of contention
    that ruined the rest of day.  So after several ruined days, I just
    skipped them (somedays I look thru one or two - hoping).
    
    There are also topics that have given me food for thought and have 
    fed me spiritually.  They were worth the wade thru the mud.
    
   				Tom

    

    Tom,
    	I hope that those topics that you felt "contained a strong spirit
    of contention" have caused you to really examine what you believe.
    I need to examine what I believe as well.  Being wrong while we
    are yet alive is nothing -- compared to the same after we have died.
    
    Don't skip those notes -- they are part of what you believe, and
    if you are wrong then they are part of what you will have to answer
    to when you stand before God. 
    
    Tom, if you feel all those notes are "mud" then send me mail, and
    let me know why.
    

    I second the motion about skipping contentious notes unless you
    like them.  There is a logical answer to every point of concern
    that can be brought up.  This does not separate the Mormons from
    any of the major Christian religions as this is an attribute that
    most of them share, in my opinion.  I think it is appropriate for
    points of concern to be brought up and handled - once.  Then, the 
    subjects can be dropped and contention can end.  
    
    
    Steve

    
    
    Roger,
    
    	Let me start out by saying that my skills in writing may limit
    my effort in communicating.  I will do my best.

			*****************
    
    	To me a "strong spirit of contention" is when a discussion becomes
    an arguement where the only purposes is not to convince or to edify
    but to win.
    
    	For instance,  I had a discussion with a fellow where he only
    listened long enough to formulate an objection or a question leading
    to an objection.  After I realized what was happening, I confronted
    him with this.  He admitted that he liked to argue.  Well, I don't.
    
    	I like to shared viewpoints.  At this point we could talk about
    being egoless, but this is difficult.
    

    			*****************
    
    	As far as examining my beliefs, that is a constant process in
    which I try to gain understanding and knowledge by study, prayer,
    experience, and sometimes discussion :*).
    
			*****************

    	Skipping notes are really a matter of what I feel at a particular
    time.   Most of the time I don't like being attacked or feeling
    like I have to defend myself, so I skip those notes that give me
    those feelings.   When I feel otherwise, I will and have read them.
    
			*****************
    
    	Just as I hit the return key, I knew that "mud" was a poor choice
    of words and that I would have to explain myself.  By "mud" I was
    refering to those topics with the "strong spirit of contention"
    which tended to cloud or stir things up for their own sake and not
    for any good purpose.  There are topics in these notes that I enjoy
    very much.    

    
    
    	I hope you can accept my feelings.
    
    					Tom

During the recent conference one of the speakers addressed the issue of how 
apologists within the Church respond to criticisms of the Church.  He pointed 
out how some do their research and answer from informed positions.  Others 
don't do enough research or don't know enough to give an informed answer, 
which can actually do damage in the long run.  

It was pointed out that too often in following an intellectual path to 
resolving all issues of religion, it was as though a scholar was chasing 
a bus, even after having caught it.  In such an effort the admonition in 
the Scriptures to hold fast to that which is true was often not being followed.

It was also pointed out that the Church is often silent when confronted with
criticism.  But, that silence doesn't mean there is no answer.  

I would like in this note to discuss what the roles and purposes of Mormons
should be as apologists or as participants in these notes.  Also, I would 
invite discussion as to the roles and purposes of critics in these notes.

For example, do Mormons or critics intend to learn, or simply to assert that 
the Church is true or false?  What, if anything, does silence mean from a 
Mormon or critic?  How does the average participant gauge when a response is 
appropriate or even needed, aside from moderator guidelines?  Do critics or
Mormons have any obligations when points of debate are proven or disproven?
When is it that a discussion has gone too far?  When is it that an issue must
be discussed?  

These are just ideas for the discussion.  It is my hope that we all might
profit and learn from the resulting discussion.  The conference proceedings
have not yet been published, but recordings of the conference are available.


Steve

    
    It is my understanding that the  term "Apologist" properly refers
    to somebody who is writing "in behalf of" (as referring to the early
    Christian writers who were termed "apologists"); as such, the word
    has quite a different meaning than when used to refer to an apology
    in the common usage of the term. Using such a definition, anyone
    speaking or writing in behalf of the Church could appropriately
    be termed an apologist, be he/she an apostle or a popular writer.

    re: .0
    
    Steve, 
    
    I tend to look at myself as neither an apologist, nor as a critic
    in this file, but as an investigator looking for historical facts.
    I want to strip away the veneer and expose the true grain of the
    wood, to appreciate it for it's beauty. There's a risk in finding
    my beliefs modified, yet I want to know the truth of things with
    the comfort that "the truth shall set you free". 
    
    Kevin

    We *do* need to define the term for apologist.  It *is* a formal
    term, referring to one who makes a formal defense or justification.
    It is *not* necessarily someone who makes apologies which are
    statements expressing regret for an offense or fault.  For example, 
    Hugh Nibley is correctly referred to as an apologist.  As I read some 
    of his works it is obvious that he is not expressing any regret or 
    aknowledgment of faults on the part of the Church or its leaders.  
    I enjoy his writings because of the appeals to reason, excellent
    research, logical development and spiritual tone.
    
    When someone is called an apologist with the intent of implying
    some aknowledgment on their part of faults in the Church or its
    leaders, this inference may be made inaccurately.  Similarly, an
    apology on behalf of the Church may be a formal justification or
    defense which does not include any implication of fault.

    Those who form and expresses judgements of the Church are critics,
    by one definition of the term.  Again, this may not necessarily 
    mean that one is trying to find fault with the Church, though this is
    the usual meaning.  
    
    During the last conference, I came away with the impression that
    the problem with intellectualism is that some will search out the
    mysteries and will find truth, but they don't embrace the truth
    once they find it.  Rather, they seek other mysteries and are
    continually pursuing these instead of embracing the truth and applying
    it to their lives.  It is because they are often not learning so that
    they can find truth but have other intents.  
    
    There are a lot of snares laid out for those who delve into the
    'mysteries'.  Critics of the Church tend not to retract false 
    statements they make about the Church once the truth comes out.  
    As their intents often do not include the pursuit of truth but do 
    include inflicting damage or some other proud and selfish reasons, 
    this suits well there purposes.  By not retracting false claims, they 
    leave snares for those who are unaware of the truth.  And, as was pointed
    out in the conference (if I may rephrase it somewhat), poorly
    informed apologists can (albeit unintentionally) leave snares, 
    too.
    
    I suspect that the reason there was so much reference to this is
    because of the Hoffman papers, though these were not directly mentioned
    in the conference.  As I mentioned in another note (don't remember
    the number) the Church is currently preparing a formal response
    to these papers.  This response is being carefully and exhaustively
    researched and prepared so that all the facts can be made plain
    regarding this matter.  
    
    Meanwhile, a lot of people who do not have access to all the facts,
    who have access limited mostly to what the critics provide, feel 
    inclination to delve into the mysteries surrounding the Hoffman
    papers.  I know that this has created quite a stir in Utah and will 
    probably have greater impact in other areas in the world.  For now, 
    the best thing to do is to not delve into this mystery because not all 
    of the facts are out.  When they *do* come out, we will be able to 
    study it objectively and avoid the snares that have been set by
    critics of the Church and by well-meaning but ill-informed apologists.

        
    Steve

One of the frustrations I have with this conference is that LDS and non-LDS
always seem to be in a contention-mode with each other.  There seems to be
an underlying feeling of proving the "other" group wrong and proving "my"
group right, and I believe that both groups are responsible for this feeling.
I would hope that LDS and non-LDS could join together in this conference and
share their mutual faith of Jesus Christ and strengthen each other.  Note 229
seems to be doing that, and I complement the persons involved in that
discussion!

I'm also frustrated because almost all of the people who read this conference
don't say anything!  I realize that people are busy and don't have a lot of
time to "note", but I would hope that they could spare a moment once in a while
to share their feelings with us.  There are five notes that are dedicated to
creating a spiritual feeling in the conference and hence in us as we pursue
our daily activities.  Please, everyone, if you have any love for the 
scriptures and for our latter-day prophets, take a moment once in a while and
share with us the things that have helped you.  This conference can be a
great spiritual network among us if we will but use it.

    30   Daily Thoughts
   116   Favorite Book of Mormon Teachings
   205   Favorite Doctrine and Covenants Teachings
   231   Favorite Bible Teachings
   232   Favorite Pearl of Great Price Teachings
   233   Favorite Teachings from our Latter-day Prophets

If you don't remember the notes when you are ready to contribute to them, do
a DIR/KEY=TEACH.