bah, now I'm suspended too

[_beastie]

One more comment - someone, probably whyme, mentioned earlier that since more believers are coming onto MAD, the "tone" is improving.

Of course it is. It is one yawn away from SS. I admit to not being interested in most threads over there to even open them up, but the ones I do open are dominated by believers, with one or two critics here and there.

Believers tend to behave when are not feeling threatened. When they feel threatened their behavior is as aggressive and rude as any other person's. The people who run MAD know this, so they deliberately are trying to engineer an environment in which believers won't feel threatened, by stacking the board with far more believers than critics, and by aggressively banning critics.

In a way, although there are many differences between MAD and the LDS church in general, both are manufacturing artificial, bubble environments.

[_why me]

Sethbag, what country are you from? Were you raised by parents very religous? both Mormon? What influences do you think encouraged you to critically think... mainly from parents, from school, or no one in particular?

Do you consider yourself to be a critical thinker marg? What exactly is a critical thinker? Your post implies that apologists are not critical thinkers. I hope that I am wrong. If I am not wrong, it shows that you are suffering from an extreme form of elitism. And that is not what critical thinking is.

I consider that critical thinkers are able to be open minded, intellectually honest, objective and can re-evaluate beliefs when new evidence becomes apparent which may oppose those beliefs. I think critical thinkers are more interested in truth as opposed to defending held beliefs. Apologists are not critical thinkers in that regard. Apologist's purpose is solely to defend, not to let the evidence lead the way, not to seek truth as a goal.

I think non critical thinkers in argument and discussion employ fallacies such as ad hominems on a frequent basis. See your post above.

Actually, Marg, I don't see your posts as critical thinking posts. Are you open minded? and intellectually honest? First, these type of descriptions lack substance and are open to interpretation. Likewise for re-evaluate beliefs when new evidence becomes apparent. You see, Marg, you assume that apologists are not critical thinkers because they still accept established beliefs even after new 'evidence' is uncovered. That is not critical thinking. Let me give you an example of critical thinking: 'to commit oneself to a journey of self-examination and self transformation'. Also attempting to put the sociological imagination into full practice in order to see different perspectives and insights in order to understand life anew.

Have you done this marg? I do not get that impression at all. You are very much entrenched into your own view of the lds church and with your own limited view of what or who an apologist is.

Critical thinkers seek out a sentence from Aristotle: 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. Critical thinkers are in a constant state of examination through question, analysis, self reflection, and evaluation. But it does not necessarily have to do with conclusions drawn. Take a look at your posts and see your entrenchment. To have a dialogue, is not about proving someone wrong nor is it about debate. It has more to do with a questioning discourse where both sides can learn from the other because the other is sharing information. Now that is critical thinking.

And marg, you will need to define evidence since evidence is arbitrary. Is the evidence established fact based in reliable documentation? Is the evidence, a personal story or experience that one wrote 150 years ago? Can the story be verified? Is the evidence based on hypothetical illustrations? Critical thinkers question evidence and its group type.

And as Karl Marx wrote: everything should be put under a ruthless critique. But conclusions can still be up to the individual.

But yes, marg, critical thinkers are open minded...lets hope that you are open minded.

[_moksha]

Actually, you should look upon this time as a time for innocent reflection. Reflect on your wrongs and seek wisdom to correct your behavior. This is actually a growing time for the both of you...a time for meditation and inner dialogue with an understanding heart, so that the both of you can grow as human beings and achieve Dharma with the outer world.

This reminds me, I have actually slipped a few times in Sunday School and Priesthood meeting and used the term Dharma rather than Doctrine. Mormon Dharma does have a nice ring to it, does it not?

[Gadianton]

Wade,

As long as you continue to focus exclusively on the "anti-social behaviors" and the "dysfunctions" of the critics, and refuse to engage believers on the same issues, then I will continue to believe this latest refrain of your is just one more in your long history of arguments that basically argue the same thing - nothing is wrong with the church or LDS beliefs, rather something is wrong with critics.

Aside from that, practically speaking, if one wants to impact a problematic dialogue between opposing groups, one's best bet is to focus on one's own group. You're already accepted and under less suspicion. You have no agenda which threatens your own group. Just as one is more effective engineering change in one's self rather than others, so it is true on the next level - one is more effective engineering change in one's won group rather than in others. I find it very suspicious you ignore this obvious reality.

In other words, given the litany of excuses and deflections, you are disinterested in and thus closed-minded to improving yourself and your capacity to have valued and efficacious interfaith dialogue. I had suspected as much, but thought you worth at least a genuine and good-faith try.

It appears that at least Scratch and Vegasrefuge and others are of the same mind, and so I am starting to question the point in me posting here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

In other words, you are disinterested in (given the litany of excuses and deflections) and thus closed-minded to improving yourself and your capacity to have valued and efficacious interfaith dialogue. I had suspected as much, but thought you worth at least a genuine and good-faith try.

In other words, you refuse to engage my point.

I'll repeat it for your benefit:

If one wants to impact a problematic dialogue between opposing groups, one's best bet is to focus on one's own group. You're already accepted and under less suspicion. You have no agenda which threatens your own group. Just as one is more effective engineering change in one's self rather than others, so it is true on the next level - one is more effective engineering change in one's won group rather than in others. I find it very suspicious you ignore this obvious reality.

Let me know if and when you're ever willing to address this point. I won't be holding my breath, of course.

[_wenglund]

In other words, you are disinterested in (given the litany of excuses and deflections) and thus closed-minded to improving yourself and your capacity to have valued and efficacious interfaith dialogue. I had suspected as much, but thought you worth at least a genuine and good-faith try.

In other words, you refuse to engage my point.

I'll repeat it for your benefit:

If one wants to impact a problematic dialogue between opposing groups, one's best bet is to focus on one's own group. You're already accepted and under less suspicion. You have no agenda which threatens your own group. Just as one is more effective engineering change in one's self rather than others, so it is true on the next level - one is more effective engineering change in one's won group rather than in others. I find it very suspicious you ignore this obvious reality.

Let me know if and when you're ever willing to address this point. I won't be holding my breath, of course.

Please click HERE

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

It appears that at least Scratch and Vegasrefuge and others are of the same mind, and so I am starting to question the point in me posting here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do not forget that hope springs eternal. There are many others here for you to help and enlighten.

[_beastie]

Please click HERE

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is about a substantial answer from you as I expected.

See, Wade, if you really were interested in interfaith dialogue with exbelievers, you would work on the behavior on your side of the fence, too. You don't. Hence, you're not really interested in interfaith dialogue. You're interested in presenting yet noe more tired rerun of your old arguments: "exbelievers are psychologically disturbed. THAT is the "real" problem, not the issues they raise."

This is a long pattern with you, Wade. I seem to recall you wanting to "reach out" to gay people and then doing so by lumping together homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia. This was what you call a "little clue": you didn't really want to reach out to gay people. Nor do you really want to reach out to LDS critics.

You're engaging in all this behavior because of something you, yourself, need. Perhaps you should spend some time figuring that out.

[_wenglund]

Please click HERE

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is about a substantial answer from you as I expected.

See, Wade, if you really were interested in interfaith dialogue with exbelievers, you would work on the behavior on your side of the fence, too. You don't. Hence, you're not really interested in interfaith dialogue. You're interested in presenting yet noe more tired rerun of your old arguments: "exbelievers are psychologically disturbed. THAT is the "real" problem, not the issues they raise."

This is a long pattern with you, Wade. I seem to recall you wanting to "reach out" to gay people and then doing so by lumping together homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia. This was what you call a "little clue": you didn't really want to reach out to gay people. Nor do you really want to reach out to LDS critics.

You're engaging in all this behavior because of something you, yourself, need. Perhaps you should spend some time figuring that out.

This puts me in mind of the following segment of the Brother Bear cartoon:

[arguing with his echo]
Ram: Hey, shut up!
Echo: Hey, shut up!
Ram: No, you shut up!
Echo: No, you shut up!
[later]
Ram: [tired] No... YOU shut up!
Echo: No... YOU shut up!

When I get the time, I will look through the "I Love Lucy" archives to see if I can find something better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Well, Wade, since you have so freely offered your “therapeutic” services to critics on this board, I’m going to return the favor to you.

I think that vocal critics and people who accept their own homosexuality make you feel anxious, threatened, and angry. You are a True Believer, who will maintain his faith in the “one true church” no matter at what cost – intellectual, physical, or emotional. Your identity is enmeshed with the church, so separation is unthinkable. Yet these other people, to whom you keep being drawn, irritate you on some level, make you anxious. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance, and are angry about the feelings of discomfort you experience on some level. You want to attack those who have created these uncomfortable feelings in you. Yet you are a good Mormon who must not allow himself to feel that outright anger and even hatred. Yet you desperately want to vent it. You want to attack those who have hurt you. So in order to maintain your self-deception – to maintain the illusion of someone who, being a follower of Christ and having the Holy Ghost to guide you, would never simply engage in attacks and hatred for selfish reasons - you must find a way to construct a scenario that allows you to do what you really want to do – attack those whom you feel have hurt you – and yet do it in a way that allows you to maintain your illusions about yourself and your own nature. So you “help” them. You only want to “help” them! You’re “helping” homosexuals by linking their behavior to pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia. You’re “helping” LDS critics by telling them the problem is within themselves, not the church. You’re “helping” them by constantly telling them they are anti-social and dysfunctional. Why, what kind of malicious person would ever doubt you only want to “help” these people? You may have to tell the “hard truth” to do so, but, still, you want to help! These people are hurting!

The ruse succeeds. You are completely fooled by your own behavior. You’re behaving altruistically. It’s just one more sign of my own anti-social dysfunctional behavior that I can’t see it, just like it was a sign of the psychologically disturbed behavior of the homosexuals whose board you kept visiting that they also found your behavior offensive and insulting.

Ah well. It’s so sad, isn’t it? It’s just so sad that all these sad, tragic people can’t see their own psychological problems when you are there to point them out.

So what do you think, wade? Does this approach work? I only want to help you, wade.