Thomas Wirthlin McConkie

[_Lemmie]

My larger point simply is that we ought to be relieved that people can be inconsistent in their observance of the Brethren's tyranny. The last thing we should hope is that they decide to follow it strictly.

Agreed, the whiplash must be painful at times.

This is a danger of pointing out to these folks their obligation to do so. Some do this in the hopes of driving them away from the Brethren, but there is a chance it will backfire and push them into following all of the Brethren's nonsensical dictates in earnest.

Maybe we are coming to the heart of this. I don't know others' intent, but personally, I don't ever discuss LDS doctrine with the intent of changing an LDS person's behavior. Discussing the logic, its impact on people, the havoc wreaked on the intellect in trying to reconcile things, that's what I find interesting. Using your example, it has never once crossed my mind to make a post with the intent of changing a poster like mg's mind. As I have stated before, my objection to his posts has nothing to do with his religion, and everything to do with his faulty logic and disruptive derailments.

In that sense, I don't see threads like this as an attack on Mormon- or lds-identifying people, but rather a discussion on Mormon or LDS topics.

[_Kishkumen]

Do you believe that Joseph Smith made up his revelations or was perhaps delusional? Do you believe Nelson makes things up or is at least delusional? Is the Mormon God a thing or is he a composite of Mormon leadership's imagination over the years? If so, is your defense of Mormonism really just about group identity?

Those are really deep questions, Exiled. I can say this: I am not making a defense of Mormonism. I am making a defense of people choosing to remain, become Mormon, or recognize their Mormon-ness. To what extent am I simply talking in terms of identity? Hmmm. Good question. I don't know. The right to identify as this or that is kind of an eirenic position to take. I guess I am reaching for something bigger than that. I hope I am. I don't think I have arrived yet, however, and I can take being criticized for merely saying one thing or seeming to say another.

Thanks for the excellent questions.

[_Mormonicious]

My larger point simply is that we ought to be relieved that people can be inconsistent in their observance of the Brethren's tyranny. The last thing we should hope is that they decide to follow it strictly.

Agreed, the whiplash must be painful at times.

This is a danger of pointing out to these folks their obligation to do so. Some do this in the hopes of driving them away from the Brethren, but there is a chance it will backfire and push them into following all of the Brethren's nonsensical dictates in earnest.

Maybe we are coming to the heart of this. I don't know others' intent, but personally, I don't ever discuss LDS doctrine with the intent of changing an LDS person's behavior. Discussing the logic, its impact on people, the havoc wreaked on the intellect in trying to reconcile things, that's what I find interesting. Using your example, it has never once crossed my mind to make a post with the intent of changing a poster like mg's mind. As I have stated before, my objection to his posts has nothing to do with his religion, and everything to do with his faulty logic and disruptive derailments.

In that sense, I don't see threads like this as an attack on Mormon- or lds-identifying people, but rather a discussion on Mormon or LDS topics.

Let me state my intent, IT IS TO ATTACK MOTHER damned PIECES OF crap THAT SELL Mormonism! Whether it be the Mormon Corporation itself or the cottage industries that the belief system spawns, they are all MOTHER damned PIECES OF crap!.

The supposed "gift" of Religion is FREE!

[_Kishkumen]

I would say it is more accurate that MG is someone who likes to think he is very open minded in odd ways, but in reality is not. His posts suggest he is ignorant of many Mormon issues, and by his own admission he tend to only view apologetic sources. This is very different when I started to really investigate these issues. While I was going to make sure I understood LDS friendly sources well, I also knew that I could not hope to be close to being open minded and fair if I did not also seek more neutral and non-friendly sources. The difference maybe that at this time I understood I really didn't know if the church was true, which is very different from how MG has approached these issues, and I wanted to know what was true more then wanting a particular belief to be true.

I will give him credit for being openminded in his own way. I don't see the harm in that. People around here get frustrated to find he is not openminded in the way he "ought to be." In other words, he does not meet our community standard for openminded-ness. He ought to be given credit for sticking it out here, a place that it so completely hostile to his religion that most LDS Mormons cannot abide here for long.

I very much agree with this. One of the things that annoyed me was people getting on MG for drinking ice tea to such an extent he decided he would no longer drink it.

Yep. His choice, of course. And I know you respect that.

[_mentalgymnast]

Now, I don't recall the OP saying one thing or another about the Brethren's position on TWC. I do recall him saying that he found an interesting podcast episode in which a young man went on a search and journey that led him to Buddhism and ultimately back to Mormonism.

Yep. But later in the thread I brought up the fact that I'm curious as to what the church administration's stance is towards this particular practice/organization (Lower Lights).

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...I would not choose to do what MG is doing, but I also have no problem with MG pooping all over this board now that I have become acclimated to its smell. Indeed, I barely notice it.

One person's poop is another person's prescription.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...[MG] tend[s] to only view apologetic sources...

I'll take exception to this. Nowadays that may be a bit closer to the truth. But over the years I've been there, done that.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe we are coming to the heart of this. I don't know others' intent, but personally, I don't ever discuss LDS doctrine with the intent of changing an LDS person's behavior. Discussing the logic, its impact on people, the havoc wreaked on the intellect in trying to reconcile things, that's what I find interesting. Using your example, it has never once crossed my mind to make a post with the intent of changing a poster like mg's mind. As I have stated before, my objection to his posts has nothing to do with his religion, and everything to do with his faulty logic and disruptive derailments.

In that sense, I don't see threads like this as an attack on Mormon- or lds-identifying people, but rather a discussion on Mormon or LDS topics.

Ah, OK. Yes, I can see that. And, to be clear, I am not pointing at you as an example of someone who attacks Mormonism or tries to shame people out of being Mormon. I would also agree that MG did not post this thread to attack Mormonism. I do think, however, that the atmosphere created by a lot of responses to these threads becomes so hostile that it gets difficult to distinguish between "discussion" and verbal assault.

I understand that my characterization of things going on here is going to be imprecise. To the extent that they touch on things that do happen in this forum, my observations may be useful to others who are thinking through what they are doing here. That said, I would never claim to have captured the whole truth of MDB. It is helpful for me to have you and others explain where you are coming from so I can test my hypotheses.

I should also say that I understand something of where the hostility (of some posters) is coming from. I know a little bit about my dear friend Shulem and also Mormonicious. I am not saying that I have them figured out. I say I sympathize with their pain and their desire to strike out at the LDS Church to some extent. I hope I have not gone too far in making that claim. It is really difficult to stomach MG's apparently daft approach to things when the damage done is so palpable and, in some cases, downright horrific.

Please do not take my comments as a call to stop the hostility. I am happy to observe the hostility, talk about the hostility, explore the hostility, etc. I do not intend to tell others what they should do with their hostility. If what I am saying is not for your ears at the moment, please do ignore it. I would prefer that others use this forum to do what they like, within, of course, the rules and limits that Dr. Shades and his team enforce.

[_Kishkumen]

One person's poop is another person's prescription.

Regards,
MG

Very true, MG. And poop is one of the oldest prescriptions out there.

[_mentalgymnast]

One of the things that annoyed me was people getting on MG for drinking ice tea to such an extent he decided he would no longer drink it.

Or did I really...?

Regards,
MG