Lucretia MacEvil wrote: No, Wade, what you think you "know" is way off base in every respect. I don't know how you could have gotten it more wrong if you tried. Please give it up.
Actually, I intentionally quoted what you had said so as to not get it wrong. Therefore, for me to have been way off base, then what you said (as I quoted you) would, of necessity, have been way off base.
If you would like to restate things (this time way on base), then I would be pleased to hear it.
harmony wrote: And that is why on-line therapy of the sort that Wade proposes is not only not going to work, but is likely to be counterproductive. Because it's entirely too easy to get it entirely wrong.
Miscommunications happen in person as well as via cyberspace. So, I don't personally think it reasonable to dismiss on-line self-help efforts because of miscommunications--particulalry when the miscommunications can easily be cleared up.
Lucretia MacEvil wrote: No, Wade, what you think you "know" is way off base in every respect. I don't know how you could have gotten it more wrong if you tried. Please give it up.
Actually, I intentionally quoted what you had said so as to not get it wrong. Therefore, for me to have been way off base, then what you said (as I quoted you) would, of necessity, have been way off base.
If you would like to restate things (this time way on base), then I would be pleased to hear it.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Quoting phrases does not good if you don't understand them in the first place. I decline to restate things because I'm not in charge of resolving your internal impediments, nor your agendas, nor your pre-conceived notions, and until those are resolved you will have a hard time seeing anything other than what you wish to see. If you do want some exercise, though, you are welcome to go back and reread and see if you can come up with any other interpretation of what I said and I'll let you know if you are getting close. It might help to read it in the context of this thread, which you might try to get an understanding of first, as from what I see you don't seem to acknowledge that personalization/identification/investment in the church -- whatever it might be called -- even exists.
harmony wrote: And that is why on-line therapy of the sort that Wade proposes is not only not going to work, but is likely to be counterproductive. Because it's entirely too easy to get it entirely wrong.
Miscommunications happen in person as well as via cyberspace. So, I don't personally think it reasonable to dismiss on-line self-help efforts because of miscommunications--particulalry when the miscommunications can easily be cleared up.
Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-
Misscommunications are not easily cleared up when the facilitator of this alleged "self-help" is hell-bent on his own agenda and will see only what he wants to see. I'm not willing to explain myself over and over to your plugged-up ears, and why should anyone else be? Still, like I said, if you wish to make some effort to re-interpret my post I will let you know if you are getting closer to the fact.
Harmony is right about the fate of your efforts here. Pity any ex-mormon who is naïve and vulnerable enough to fall into your hands, cyber or real life, because counter-productive is the best case scenario and at worst real harm could be done.
GIMR wrote:And I've just started reading Conversations With God, and that is one of the things that the author claims God said, that people place another human above them as a spiritual leader, to keep from having to deal with the responsiblity of hearing and interpreting God's word for themselves. Intrigues me, that does.
I just feel compelled to mention that the author of Conversations With God has admitted that he made it all up, but that doesn't mean the book doesn't have good insights.
Wow, did he? That just goes to show you how creative the human mind can be... that's wild. :-)
Makes me wonder if Joseph might have had a similiar experience, had he lived that long.
I don't think so, because everything he had achieved was built upon that initial experience he claims to have had. Now, I went online and couldn't find anything that spoke of Walsch having said he was in essence, a fraud (he's started a new religion of sorts, too). Who knows where his movement will go.
Pre-polygamy, I think that Joseph Smith movement was just fine, if you could look past the good Nephite, bad Lamanite (and what set them apart visually). It embodied a lot of the principles of America at that time, and it answered a lot of questions being posed on a spiritual, political, and cultural level. But he went too far. Walsch may do that too.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Lucretia MacEvil wrote: No, Wade, what you think you "know" is way off base in every respect. I don't know how you could have gotten it more wrong if you tried. Please give it up.
Actually, I intentionally quoted what you had said so as to not get it wrong. Therefore, for me to have been way off base, then what you said (as I quoted you) would, of necessity, have been way off base.
If you would like to restate things (this time way on base), then I would be pleased to hear it.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Quoting phrases does not good if you don't understand them in the first place. I decline to restate things because I'm not in charge of resolving your internal impediments, nor your agendas, nor your pre-conceived notions, and until those are resolved you will have a hard time seeing anything other than what you wish to see. If you do want some exercise, though, you are welcome to go back and reread and see if you can come up with any other interpretation of what I said and I'll let you know if you are getting close. It might help to read it in the context of this thread, which you might try to get an understanding of first, as from what I see you don't seem to acknowledge that personalization/identification/investment in the church -- whatever it might be called -- even exists.
asbestosman wrote:I would add, "or their religion". It's only a shame that many in our society don't seem to understand why religion deserves respect too.
Does atheism deserve respect?
Is atheism a religion? Many atheists vehemently object to such a notion. I wonder though. I've been reading Dawkins' Delusion (yes, the wording is intentional) and keep hearing stories about atheist persecution. I swear I've heard plenty of those opposed to the church deride the LDS when they talk about persecution.
Now if I wish to have a civil dialogue about atheism, I will be respectful regardless of how silly (or at least misguided) I think the claims are.
Alright, I know Who Knows never stated that Atheism was a religion. He only asked if it deserved respect too. I was in a pissy mood because I'd been reading Dawkins and I really dislike much of what he says.
I have some other thoughts. I think some atheists absolutely deserve respect. I can respect Dawkins as a scientist. I can respect Bertrand Russel as a mathematician. I can respect Douglas Adams as a witty writer and satirist. I also think there are some good thoughts from atheism (or at least that atheists use) such as burden of proof (not proving a negative is useless), and I enjoy many other principles of skepticism. What I cannot respect is the idea that religion (instead of people) is responsible for atrocities. I see no evidence that these atrocities are caused by religion. Indeed we can see plenty of atrocities caused by atheists and yet I do not blame it on atheism but on individual people. The brand of atheism I hate is Dawkins' brand. He is far too arrogant and rude. He has nothing good to say of religion--at least those with a personal God.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:The brand of atheism I hate is Dawkins' brand. He is far too arrogant and rude. He has nothing good to say of religion--at least those with a personal God.
Well, yeah, he's at one end of the extreme. Religious fanatics are on the other end. I think he's just sick of religion being shoved in his face. And I have to agree with him to a certain extent.
At least you don't have 50,000 Dawkins missionaries roaming the streets of the world spreading their message, right? ;)
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:At least you don't have 50,000 Dawkins missionaries roaming the streets of the world spreading their message, right? ;)
What'd be the fun in that? It's not like I can bible-bash with 'em.
Actually, I like playing games with missionaries anyhow. I actually got stopped by them while waiting for a bus. I couldn't think of anything fun to do so just showed them my temple recommend. I guess with my longish hair (and the fact that work is in a different mission) they couldn't tell me apart from Gentiles. Next time I get stopped I'll be sure to ask them something really crazy like why God has nipples or whether spirits are colorblind. I might continue by asking what happens to spirits when we dream and whether I need to repent for things I do in my dream which I thought were real at the time because maybe my spirit was the one that made the choice.
I still haven't figured out how to respond to Dawkins (or potential Dawkins missionaries), but I will look into it. Maybe I'll invite them to my barbeque (mwa ha ha). ;)
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:whether I need to repent for things I do in my dream which I thought were real at the time because maybe my spirit was the one that made the choice.
I think you're off the hook there. Didn't Packer basically say 'wet dreams' were OK, and were our way of controlling the 'little factory'?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...