Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get It

[Guest]

Wade - instead on focusing on Beastie why don't you focus on yourself. Tell us Wade - what in this life has interfered with you being more Christ like? What type of feelings and thoughts have tested your "faith"

[_wenglund]

Wade, not to be overly inflammatory, but the concept of using a "seed of faith" and nurturing it until it becomes belief and then NEVER question that belief is how a lot of cults operate. The terminology might be a different, but the concepts are the same. Just because the LDS church is too big to be called a cult doesn't mean it doesn't employ some very cult-like actions.

Take your scenario and apply it to the Wiccans. Lets say a Wiccan missionary came knocking on your sisters door. They ask her to take a leap of faith and see if the aura of Gaia can penetrate her soul. Your sister feels this aura and decides to commit to the Wiccan religion. They then tell her that Gaia would be displeased if she were to question any of their beliefs and that in order to maintain unity with the Earth, she must submit herself wholly to the Earth and the Wiccans. Otherwise Gaia will remove her aura.

Can you see how some might call this cultish?

One cannot reasonably interpret my comments as suggesting that once in the process of growth in faith that there is NEVER questioning. In fact, if you read my last post regarding Beastie's specific example, you will see where I explicitly intimate that a vital part of the process of growth in faith entails testing (i.e. "questioning"), at leasst as certain stages of spiritual development.

So, any comparisons between what I have been saying and "cults" (as the term is pejoratively understood), would be ill-informed and mistaken.

But, I am grateful that you respectfully raised the question so as to give me an opportunity to clarify and correct any misperceptions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

One cannot reasonably interpret my comments as suggesting that once in the process of growth in faith that there is NEVER questioning. In fact, if you read my last post regarding Beastie's specific example, you will see where I explicitly intimate that a vital part of the process of growth in faith entails testing (i.e. "questioning"), at leasst as certain stages of spiritual development.

So, any comparisons between what I have been saying and "cults" (as the term is pejoratively understood), would be ill-informed and mistaken.

But, I am grateful that you respectfully raised the question so as to give me an opportunity to clarify and correct any misperceptions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm confused then. Your earlier position seemed to be that those of us who lose faith do so because we "nit-pick" the problems of the church, which is not in line with becoming more Christ-like and moves us further away from being Christ-like. I inferred from this stance that we should not nit-pick doctrines or problems, but instead focus on becoming like Christ and the rest will eventually fall in place.

Perhaps you have explained yourself in a previous post and I missed it?

[_The Nehor]

So then we're back to the beginning. You hurl insults you really mean. That's being honest. It shows integrity, doesn't it? Assuming you're going to comment, it's better to tell the truth, right?

Perhaps, but it's such a low level of integrity I don't think it deserves the word. I interacted with several people and did not murder, maim, or rape any of them. This is in accordance with my moral code but I don't think it shows integrity, just that I'm not a completely debased barbarian.

If not insulting people is part of your moral code, then fine. I personally think that honesty is a bigger value, but that's my personal moral code, and you've prioritized your code differently. I stand by my code. That's integrity. I still don't see how that is indicative of lunacy (unless you were just hurling an insult you didn't mean).

No, I meant the insult. I think you're a lunatic even if your code (which seems incredibly easy to follow by the way) is as you describe it.

by the way, I will grant that I don't always speak up and criticize. Sometimes, it doesn't seem worth it (in fact, usually). I will do it, however, if I think something needs to be said, and I don't avoid doing it on the grounds of morality.

Criticism is not equal to insulting.

[Gadianton]

Wade - instead on focusing on Beastie why don't you focus on yourself. Tell us Wade - what in this life has interfered with you being more Christ like? What type of feelings and thoughts have tested your "faith"

Karl,

It pains me to have to tell you something so simple and obvious, but if you look closely at the general topic of the thread ("Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get it"), and if you carefully examine the specific line of reasoning that the thread is currently undertaking (i.e. my hypothesis about why former members may have lost faith), and if you have even a modicum of comprehension skill, you may just realize that since I can't in any reasonable way be considered as "anti-Mormon" or as a "former member who has lost faith", then it would be entirely inappropriate to discuss myself on this thread as you suggest.

But, I am comforted to repeatedly learn that you have such an interest in talking about me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

So then we're back to the beginning. You hurl insults you really mean. That's being honest. It shows integrity, doesn't it? Assuming you're going to comment, it's better to tell the truth, right?

Perhaps, but it's such a low level of integrity I don't think it deserves the word. I interacted with several people and did not murder, maim, or rape any of them. This is in accordance with my moral code but I don't think it shows integrity, just that I'm not a completely debased barbarian.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but integrity has more to do with being true to yourself than it does propping up some sense of morality.

If not insulting people is part of your moral code, then fine. I personally think that honesty is a bigger value, but that's my personal moral code, and you've prioritized your code differently. I stand by my code. That's integrity. I still don't see how that is indicative of lunacy (unless you were just hurling an insult you didn't mean).

No, I meant the insult. I think you're a lunatic even if your code (which seems incredibly easy to follow by the way) is as you describe it.

You think it’s easier to be honest? How come you don’t seem all that honest, then?

I think you're a lunatic too, but I don't think it's due to your lack of integrity, or your strange sense of what integrity is. You seem to flip around more than a fish out of water, so it's hard to imagine you're all that honest. The real reason I think you're a lunatic is that you claim to speak to god. I guess we all have our standards and reasons.

by the way, I will grant that I don't always speak up and criticize. Sometimes, it doesn't seem worth it (in fact, usually). I will do it, however, if I think something needs to be said, and I don't avoid doing it on the grounds of morality.

Criticism is not equal to insulting.

That's true. Funny how many Mormons are insulted when we criticize their church, huh?

[Gadianton]

I'm confused then. Your earlier position seemed to be that those of us who lose faith do so because we "nit-pick" the problems of the church, which is not in line with becoming more Christ-like and moves us further away from being Christ-like. I inferred from this stance that we should not nit-pick doctrines or problems, but instead focus on becoming like Christ and the rest will eventually fall in place.

Perhaps you have explained yourself in a previous post and I missed it?

Hi Scottie,

Again, i am grateful for your insightful questions and the respectful and effective way you present them.

However, I think your confusion may be a function of failing to distinguish between questions that may arise and how it is that members may respond to those questions once they do arise.

As previously explained, at certain stages of spiritual development it is vital to the process of growth in faith that questions arise. Questioning, then, is somewhat intergal to personal progression, and this so that the person's faith may experience resistence and be tested with the intent of becoming strengthened through continued striving to become more like Christ.

The risk and down-side, however, is that the questions and test may result in a loss of faith, and this by way of nit-picking the questions (elevating them in importance and given them a level of attention that really isn't warranted), failing to see their irrelevance, and being distracted from striving to become more like Christ by not continuing on the path designed to best do just that.

Do you now see the difference? The problem isn't that questions arise (they do and should), but in how a person responds to the questions. One's reaction to the questions may either result in strengthening of faith or loss of faith depending upon whether or not one's focus and efforts remain on becoming like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but integrity has more to do with being true to yourself than it does propping up some sense of morality.

I disagree here. Being true to myself at one point could have meant being a sociopath.

I think you're a lunatic too, but I don't think it's due to your lack of integrity, or your strange sense of what integrity is. You seem to flip around more than a fish out of water, so it's hard to imagine you're all that honest. The real reason I think you're a lunatic is that you claim to speak to god. I guess we all have our standards and reasons.

I really haven't noticed any flipping on my part. I honestly talk to God.

That's true. Funny how many Mormons are insulted when we criticize their church, huh?

Saying that only an absolute moron could believe in my faith (your usual approach) is insulting. It does not qualify as criticism. Sorry.

[_Scottie]

The risk and down-side, however, is that the questions and test may result in a loss of faith, and this by way of nit-picking the questions (elevating them in importance and given them a level of attention that really isn't warranted), failing to see their irrelevance, and being distracted from striving to become more like Christ by not continuing on the path designed to best do just that.

The bolded statement is where I believe most of our disagreement comes from.

You seem to be saying that the unreliable nature of revelation in the LDS church is of low importance and shouldn't be of any concern to any of us. I suspect that most, if not all critics contend that this problem is one of the most important and core problems with the LDS church. If the Prophets, the men who are supposed to have a direct line of communication to God, can't even recognize a revelation, then what chance does someone like me have of correctly interpreting one?

I'm not quite sure how you can say that this issue is of low importance? It seems to me as if it puts one of the foundational claims of Mormonism, Moroni's test, on trial. That seems to be of great importance.

[_The Nehor]

If the Prophets, the men who are supposed to have a direct line of communication to God, can't even recognize a revelation, then what chance does someone like me have of correctly interpreting one?

None whatsoever except by the grace of God. Strong impetus to be humble.