Speaking Truth in Posts

[steve-in-kville]

As you can see, any or all of the above reasons may be in play here. As Lester Bauman once sagely noted:
“There are many things we do not see in this world but it does not mean they do not exist. It means simply that we have not seen them yet.”

This site does not often police the sight of its members, but some people are self-policing and have not yet seen things that exist foe reasons under their own control.

I've participated in forums that were heavily moderated and at times it did more harm than good. If those same mods were on this site, half of us would be gone, or temporarily banned every month or two.

Be thankful for the moderation we have.

[Verity]

I agree with Steve, we do not want rigid control that backfires. This is a place to share freely, right? That said, at our core we each want to be known and heard. There are some who are seeking and long for the culture/foundation/blessings of the Anabaptist lifestyle. They are radically different from their peers. It is a lonely road. Being able to share with others, even if not all beliefs align, can be huge for these folks. We can learn from their lives and experiences even if we do not agree with their doctrine.

When someone feels threatened by another candidly sharing their belief in a respectful manner, it raises questions. A mature individual can simply state that they do not agree without resorting to ripping apart the person behind the belief.

I'm new to the forum and don't have the benefit of looking back over years of past posts. So I may be missing something important here. Some of these threads feel too much like a lot of family gatherings I've been at where the best thing is to sit silent or risk the most benign statement landing you with a verbal blow on the head. Are we here to learn from each other or boost our own egos?

[MaxPC]

I have seen the mob mentality here years back when Brother Gabriel was on Mennodiscuss. You had it then & it had nothing to do with supposed false photos. It had everything to do with not liking his explanations about Eastern Orthodox teachings. He by the way is who suggested I come here as a seeker (and then regretted it). So sometimes with the mob mentality one might conclude it is wiser to open not your mouth. I certainly understand why. I'd prefer to see the good I do see in him. And I simply disagree that he's trying to convert you. It's not like you're all in agreement anyway in the variety of sects represented here. Obsession is not a fruit of the spirit.

Agreed. Abusive personalities feed on the ability to continue the stalking and harassment of victims and try to manipulate others into believing that it is the abuser's right to continue the abuse.

[Josh]

I have seen the mob mentality here years back when Brother Gabriel was on Mennodiscuss. You had it then & it had nothing to do with supposed false photos. It had everything to do with not liking his explanations about Eastern Orthodox teachings. He by the way is who suggested I come here as a seeker (and then regretted it). So sometimes with the mob mentality one might conclude it is wiser to open not your mouth. I certainly understand why. I'd prefer to see the good I do see in him. And I simply disagree that he's trying to convert you. It's not like you're all in agreement anyway in the variety of sects represented here. Obsession is not a fruit of the spirit.

Agreed. Abusive personalities feed on the ability to continue the stalking and harassment of victims and try to manipulate others into believing that it is the abuser's right to continue the abuse.

MaxPC, I hold a strong stance against abuse.

Are there any abusers or victims on MennoNet that we should know about?

[Josh]

I'm new to the forum and don't have the benefit of looking back over years of past posts. So I may be missing something important here. Some of these threads feel too much like a lot of family gatherings I've been at where the best thing is to sit silent or risk the most benign statement landing you with a verbal blow on the head. Are we here to learn from each other or boost our own egos?

There’s a context that for the last 10 years or so (or longer), there have been repeated claims by a certain person that “Plain Catholicism” exists, along with claims such as:

- Catholics don’t require infant baptism and are fine with adult believers’ baptism. (Not true)
- Catholics can affirm the Schleitheim / Dordrecht confessions. (not true)
- Catholics hold to nonresistance. (Generally speaking, not true.)
- Websites about “Plain Catholics” accurately describe their practice, when the pictures on them were of German Baptists, Amish, or other Anabaptists.

We are indeed here to learn; but we at not here to learn from someone claiming Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism, because that is simply not true. It has been discussed thoroughly. Unfortunately, this issue is relevant to a topic like “Speaking Truth in Posts”, because claiming that one can practice Catholicism and also practice plain Anabaptism is simply not true.

[ken_sylvania]

I have seen the mob mentality here years back when Brother Gabriel was on Mennodiscuss. You had it then & it had nothing to do with supposed false photos. It had everything to do with not liking his explanations about Eastern Orthodox teachings. He by the way is who suggested I come here as a seeker (and then regretted it). So sometimes with the mob mentality one might conclude it is wiser to open not your mouth. I certainly understand why. I'd prefer to see the good I do see in him. And I simply disagree that he's trying to convert you. It's not like you're all in agreement anyway in the variety of sects represented here. Obsession is not a fruit of the spirit.

Agreed. Abusive personalities feed on the ability to continue the stalking and harassment of victims and try to manipulate others into believing that it is the abuser's right to continue the abuse.

MaxPC, I hold a strong stance against abuse.

Are there any abusers or victims on MennoNet that we should know about?

There was a guy, I think it was barnhart maybe, that got accused of trespassing last year when he posted about the glass-shard-topped wall and razor wire at the Carmelite Monastery in NYC. And when Ken posted a link to street view, he got accused of anti-Catholic bias and of having a hate-filled heart. His accuser was flat-out lying as street view actually does show a high wall topped with glass shards and razor wire.

[Bootstrap]

Are there any abusers or victims on MennoNet that we should know about?

I would hope that moderators would intervene with any abusive behavior and protect any victims. That's important.

[Sudsy]

I'm new to the forum and don't have the benefit of looking back over years of past posts. So I may be missing something important here. Some of these threads feel too much like a lot of family gatherings I've been at where the best thing is to sit silent or risk the most benign statement landing you with a verbal blow on the head. Are we here to learn from each other or boost our own egos?

There’s a context that for the last 10 years or so (or longer), there have been repeated claims by a certain person that “Plain Catholicism” exists, along with claims such as:

- Catholics don’t require infant baptism and are fine with adult believers’ baptism. (Not true)
- Catholics can affirm the Schleitheim / Dordrecht confessions. (not true)
- Catholics hold to nonresistance. (Generally speaking, not true.)
- Websites about “Plain Catholics” accurately describe their practice, when the pictures on them were of German Baptists, Amish, or other Anabaptists.

We are indeed here to learn; but we at not here to learn from

someone claiming Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism

, because that is simply not true. It has been discussed thoroughly. Unfortunately, this issue is relevant to a topic like “Speaking Truth in Posts”, because claiming that one can practice Catholicism and also practice plain Anabaptism is simply not true.

If we are 'speaking truth in posts' as the title says, then could you please provide the statement by this someone proving the underlined. It could be my memory acting up as I only recall something along the lines that some Catholics have their practise of being 'plain'. Actually all of the list of what has been claimed to be true I would need to see these claims as posted from the past to agree they were claimed. If they are what you have read into posts, then I will consider these as opinions from what has been said and should be stated as opinions, imo.

[ohio jones]

I'm new to the forum and don't have the benefit of looking back over years of past posts. So I may be missing something important here. Some of these threads feel too much like a lot of family gatherings I've been at where the best thing is to sit silent or risk the most benign statement landing you with a verbal blow on the head. Are we here to learn from each other or boost our own egos?

There’s a context that for the last 10 years or so (or longer), there have been repeated claims by a certain person that “Plain Catholicism” exists, along with claims such as:

- Catholics don’t require infant baptism and are fine with adult believers’ baptism. (Not true)
- Catholics can affirm the Schleitheim / Dordrecht confessions. (not true)
- Catholics hold to nonresistance. (Generally speaking, not true.)
- Websites about “Plain Catholics” accurately describe their practice, when the pictures on them were of German Baptists, Amish, or other Anabaptists.

We are indeed here to learn; but we at not here to learn from

someone claiming Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism

, because that is simply not true. It has been discussed thoroughly. Unfortunately, this issue is relevant to a topic like “Speaking Truth in Posts”, because claiming that one can practice Catholicism and also practice plain Anabaptism is simply not true.

If we are 'speaking truth in posts' as the title says, then could you please provide the statement by this someone proving the underlined. It could be my memory acting up as I only recall something along the lines that some Catholics have their practise of being 'plain'. Actually all of the list of what has been claimed to be true I would need to see these claims as posted from the past to agree they were claimed. If they are what you have read into posts, then I will consider these as opinions from what has been said and should be stated as opinions, imo.

I don't see any underlining, but the claims being referenced are discussed in the early pages of this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=815

[Sudsy]

I'm new to the forum and don't have the benefit of looking back over years of past posts. So I may be missing something important here. Some of these threads feel too much like a lot of family gatherings I've been at where the best thing is to sit silent or risk the most benign statement landing you with a verbal blow on the head. Are we here to learn from each other or boost our own egos?

There’s a context that for the last 10 years or so (or longer), there have been repeated claims by a certain person that “Plain Catholicism” exists, along with claims such as:

- Catholics don’t require infant baptism and are fine with adult believers’ baptism. (Not true)
- Catholics can affirm the Schleitheim / Dordrecht confessions. (not true)
- Catholics hold to nonresistance. (Generally speaking, not true.)
- Websites about “Plain Catholics” accurately describe their practice, when the pictures on them were of German Baptists, Amish, or other Anabaptists.

We are indeed here to learn; but we at not here to learn from someone claiming Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism, because that is simply not true. It has been discussed thoroughly. Unfortunately, this issue is relevant to a topic like “Speaking Truth in Posts”, because claiming that one can practice Catholicism and also practice plain Anabaptism is simply not true.

If we are 'speaking truth in posts' as the title says, then could you please provide the statement by this someone proving the underlined. It could be my memory acting up as I only recall something along the lines that some Catholics have their practise of being 'plain'. Actually all of the list of what has been claimed to be true I would need to see these claims as posted from the past to agree they were claimed. If they are what you have read into posts, then I will consider these as opinions from what has been said and should be stated as opinions, imo.

Whoops I used quote marks where I meant to use underlining. Corrected above.