Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get It

[_wenglund]

If it is of any help, I will happily admit that my previous comment could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that Beastie lacked intelligence.

But, as indicated, that was not my intent. In fact, I have noted on several occasions that I thought Beastie to be quite intelligent. I just view it as a sad waste that she has chosen to lock that intelligence into the narrow confines of her closed mind.

And, while this may be a riviting topic of discussion for some, I will have to beg your leave for want of interest on may part.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

If it is of any help, I will happily admit that my previous comment could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that Beastie lacked intelligence.

Very good, Wade. That's a good first step.

[_Scottie]

I think it takes a dogged determination to ignore or discount what exmormons actually say about their loss of faith to maintain the opinion expressed by Wade.

It's just another version of discounting why people lose faith - like they got their feelings hurt.

I see no more doggedness in Wade than I do in every poster here.

While I may not agree with his point of view, I can see where he is coming from.

[_wenglund]

I think it takes a dogged determination to ignore or discount what exmormons actually say about their loss of faith to maintain the opinion expressed by Wade.

It's just another version of discounting why people lose faith - like they got their feelings hurt.

I haven't ignored or discounted what exmormons say about their loss of faith. In fact, in my last post I explicitly acknowledged it. (Putting words into my mouth seems pathological around here)

Rather, I am simply proposing an alternative point of view.

Are the minds of some exmormons so intolerant of differing and opposing views as to be closed on the subject?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I haven't ignored or discounted what exmormons say about their loss of faith. In fact, in my last post I explicitly acknowledged it. (Putting words into my mouth seems pathological around here)

Rather, I am simply proposing an alternative point of view.

Are the minds of some exmormons so intolerant of differing and opposing views as to be closed on the subject?

At the risk of you accusing me of inferior intelligence again, right on this thread I explicitly stated that I lost faith due to the fact that God did not tell me the church was the "one true church", despite my frequent pleas for Him to do so. (see the long discussion with Nehor over whether the dead silence, accompanied by negative feelings, fairly constitute a "stupor of thought").

I do not see any way possible to view this "as being distracted unawares by relatively insubstantial minutia and irrelevancing, and taking their eye off the real intents and purposes of the gospel."

Most exmormons that I've known have lost faith due to what they perceived as a failure on the part of the church/gospel to meet its own expressed reality. For example, in discussing the topic of this thread, the larger point of discussing the reliability of prophetic teachings versus the reliability about members' ability to discern between the prophet's opinion and the mind of the Lord is all about the reliability of revelation - and revelation is the very core of the gospel. I do not see any way possible to view the failure of revelation as "being distracted unawares by relatively insubstantial minutia and irrelevancing, and taking their eye off the real intents and purposes of the gospel."

This is the topic of this thread, so it seems to me that declaring exmormons lose faith "by being distracted unawares by relatively insubstantial minutia and irrelevancing, and taking their eye off the real intents and purposes of the gospel", you are indicating that you find the dilemma about the reliability of revelation as insubstantial minutia. And yet I'm quite certain you don't. So I don't know what else to conclude other than you are ignoring what exmormons are actually saying.

[_beastie]

I see no more doggedness in Wade than I do in every poster here.

I was being specific in what Wade is dogged about - ignoring what exmormons have to say about why they lost faith. See my response to Wade.

The exmormons that I know consistently report that they lost faith due to issues directly related to the reliability or validity of truth claims made by the LDS church.

If the only thing that really matters in the LDS church is living a Christ-like life, then no restoration would ever have been required in the first place. All Christian churches teach about living a Christ-like life. The LDS church teaches about living a Christ-like faith, but it has attached many other truth claims to that, as well - and those other truth claims have to do with why the "one true church" had to be restored in the first place.

[_wenglund]

...right on this thread I explicitly stated that I lost faith due to the fact that God did not tell me the church was the "one true church", despite my frequent pleas for Him to do so. (see the long discussion with Nehor over whether the dead silence, accompanied by negative feelings, fairly constitute a "stupor of thought").

I do not see any way possible to view this "as being distracted unawares by relatively insubstantial minutia and irrelevancing, and taking their eye off the real intents and purposes of the gospel."

Is you mind closed to thoughtfully considering a plausible causal link between the presumed "dead silence" and the distractions from the real intents of the gospel?

If not, then I would be pleased to explore the issue with you. And, if you think this may be off topic for this thread, we can take it to another.

Most exmormons that I've known have lost faith due to what they perceived as a failure on the part of the church/gospel to meet its own expressed reality. For example, in discussing the topic of this thread, the larger point of discussing the reliability of prophetic teachings versus the reliability about members' ability to discern between the prophet's opinion and the mind of the Lord is all about the reliability of revelation - and revelation is the very core of the gospel. I do not see any way possible to view the failure of revelation as "being distracted unawares by relatively insubstantial minutia and irrelevancing, and taking their eye off the real intents and purposes of the gospel."

Is you mind closed to thoughtfully considering a plausible causal link between the presumed "unreliability of revelation" and the distractions from the real intents of the gospel?

If not, we can discuss it here or on another thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Is you mind closed to thoughtfully considering a plausible causal link between the presumed "dead silence" and the distractions from the real intents of the gospel?

Is you mind closed to thoughtfully considering a plausible causal link between the presumed "unreliability of revelation" and the distractions from the real intents of the gospel?

The LDS church teaches that God will answer the sincere prayers of those who want to know if the church is true. That is one of the foundational claims of the church.

You, personally, may have found a way to believe that somehow eliminates or reduces the importance of that claim - ie, the church is the "one true church", but that is inherently contradictory to what the LDS church itself claims.

According to the church itself, the "real intents of the gospel" is intertwined with the fact that the LDS church is the 'one true church' - the only church that provides access to the ordinances of the priesthood that will allow individuals to, in fact, attain the fullness of the real intents of the gospel. If the church is not really the "one true church", and does not have the right to make that claim, that directly impacts the "real intent" of the gospel.

If you think you have found a way to explain this otherwise, feel free to do so. But I do suggest that if you really want to convey your thoughts on the matter in a way that will allow me - and others - to hear you, you cease your pattern of inserting insults, veiled or otherwise, in your replies.

[_harmony]

The prophet is as reliable as any other wise man of his generation. He's not the important part of that equation. The important part of the equation is the individuals. Too many people want to abdicate their personal responsibility and just follow the prophet. That way is fraught with pitfalls. Much better to rely on one's own personal inspiration than to rely on someone else's, especially someone who doesn't know you.

Harmony, YOU said all that needs to be said on the topic of Prophets... "Paternalism," in truth Prophets appeal to those still living with the need to have someone else make their decsions...
Roger
*
*

Establishing one's own relationship with God, and trusting one's own inspiration above anyone else's, leaves one open to criticism from anyone who does not have that particular relationship for whatever reason. Holding onto that, in a follow-the-prophet culture, is difficult, as I'm sure many here can verify. I'm not saying the follow-the-prophet crowd is lazy, but it's so much easier if someone else does the spiritual heavy lifting. Relationships take time and effort... even relationships with deity. When Christ said "seek and ye shall find", he wasn't talking about seeking the prophet.

It's been my experience that few seek; few find. It's easier to follow the prophet.

[_Scottie]

I see no more doggedness in Wade than I do in every poster here.

I was being specific in what Wade is dogged about - ignoring what exmormons have to say about why they lost faith. See my response to Wade.

The exmormons that I know consistently report that they lost faith due to issues directly related to the reliability or validity of truth claims made by the LDS church.

If the only thing that really matters in the LDS church is living a Christ-like life, then no restoration would ever have been required in the first place. All Christian churches teach about living a Christ-like life. The LDS church teaches about living a Christ-like faith, but it has attached many other truth claims to that, as well - and those other truth claims have to do with why the "one true church" had to be restored in the first place.

Right. Which was sort of my point earlier with the WoW.

I'm still not quite clear how the WoW fits into Wades religious worldview. It seems to me, and correct if I'm wrong Wade, that he believes the WoW in itself is not the important thing, but that we have an attitude of willingness to obey any and all commandments God issues. The WoW is just another commandment which we should follow because we have already given ourselves to God. Those of us that nit pick the individual commandments are missing the larger picture that we should just obey. Am I close, Wade?