MDDB poll

[Guest]

The roundtable discussion is specifically denoted as being about family members who have left the church. How are members and ex-members alike supposed to engage in constructive dialogue within their own family if one side (maybe both?) believes it is not possible to talk about issues without contention?

John Dehlin's efforts along these lines seemed like the best examples of positive bridge-building that isn't necessarily about victory for one side over the other.

FAIR isn't about a two-state solution with a bridge between them, though, is it?

I tend to think Scott's response is reflective of the reality on the ground, if it also highlights the reality of deeper problems for members of FAIR that might deserve their own focus and reflection. I don't think FAIR is the venue that is going to ultimate help divided families find intersecting beliefs and values that can anchor better family relationships where belief in the Church varies. FAIR is what it is. It's role is to give believers who want to believe and need an answer to the question, "Can I still believe this?" something that fits that need. The problem of mixed faith families, very real indeed, and Runtu's valuable suggestion for exploring ways to a solution shouldn't be dismissed. But I think it's a problem that simply is beyond the FAIR umbrella.

Perhaps I agree with DCP in this case. FAIR is a hammer. For some who prefer that hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

Forging a weld between family members of different perspectives regarding the church is not the job for a hammer, or the people who are looking for nails to be pounded down.

[_Runtu]

Runtu,

Interesting that DCP would start adding your - "-DCP, no less" line at the end of his posts on your thread over on the MDDB.

I was trying to suggest that it was odd that a top-tier apologist would spend any time on the CES letter. DCP apparently took that as a slam. I'm tempted to start referring him as "DCP, no less" from now on. I'm just that terrible a person.

This man's arrogance, narcissism and near pathological need to draw attention to himself never ceases to amaze. His combative demeanor in the discussion over there stands in stark contrast to yours.

I don't understand his reaction, but I won't worry about it. I'm not going to argue about the panel or who should say what. I was just curious. I know what I would do if I were trying to help people deal with the apostasy of their family members, but obviously my opinion is not welcome and seems to have been taken as arrogant and mean-spirited, for whatever reason.

I wonder if it ever occurs to him that this kind of behavior only serves to diminish what little credibility he might have left with folks other than those in his like minded and shrinking fan base.

It may just be that he and I have a long history, and he read what I wrote with that history in mind.

[_Runtu]

John Dehlin's efforts along these lines seemed like the best examples of positive bridge-building that isn't necessarily about victory for one side over the other.

FAIR isn't about a two-state solution with a bridge between them, though, is it?

I tend to think Scott's response is reflective of the reality on the ground, if it also highlights the reality of deeper problems for members of FAIR that might deserve their own focus and reflection. I don't think FAIR is the venue that is going to ultimate help divided families find intersecting beliefs and values that can anchor better family relationships where belief in the Church varies. FAIR is what it is. It's role is to give believers who want to believe and need an answer to the question, "Can I still believe this?" something that fits that need. The problem of mixed faith families, very real indeed, and Runtu's valuable suggestion for exploring ways to a solution shouldn't be dismissed. But I think it's a problem that simply is beyond the FAIR umbrella.

Perhaps I agree with DCP in this case. FAIR is a hammer. For some who prefer that hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

Forging a weld between family members of different perspectives regarding the church is not the job for a hammer, or the people who are looking for nails to be pounded down.

Probably so. I was just wondering what their goal was with the panel. I still don't know.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Wow! I hadn't seen this.

What is the commentary like? What is the spin?

You damned post there Liz, Jesus Christ.

[_mackay11]

Post of the week came from Rob Osborn. Those of you who have followed Rob's posts for a while will appreciate how beautifully ironic this is:

Impossible to debate close minded folks.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/635 ... 1209383622

[Guest]

Wow! I hadn't seen this.

What is the commentary like? What is the spin?

You f*****g post there Liz, Jesus Christ.

I don't read there every day, Stak. Shoot me for asking for a link.

It may surprise you that I read this board more than that one.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

It may just be that he and I have a long history, and he read what I wrote with that history in mind.

I think that is probably most likely the case.

I was also actually surprised at Dan's overreaction on that thread.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Runtu!

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/636 ... who-leave/

Your MDDB thread is going really well, isn't it?



Anyway, it seems to me that FAIR is not in the business of bridge building and/or enhancing, repairing, sustaining human relationships. Their focus and priority is on an entirely different thing......the defense of Mormonism.

Just like many other apologetic organizations, the "ism" in Mormonism is what trumps and divides the "Mormons" in Mormonism. Sadly, in my opinion, this is exactly why many (most/all?) of these apologetic organizations fail miserably in bringing forth love, compassion, kindness, understanding and support to the very people who are (or once where) Mormon. This failing is surely what we see as a result - Complex and often difficult/stressful family/friend relationships that folks are forced to navigate/manage.

If you want to have a roundtable panel discussion about this particular topic (that has a chance to bring a net positive for all human beings involved) you must get rid of the "ism" and take your seats at the table as human beings that are Mormon and human beings that are ex-Mormon. This type of seating arrangement will provide (at least) a chance for constructive and positive discussion to be born.

If you need information/material when debating online - FAIR is your ticket!
If you are trying to repair, resolve or keep a relationship with your daughter - FAIR is not your ticket!

Just my take!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Runtu]

Your MDDB thread is going really well, isn't it?

Yes, it's going swimmingly. I think it's probably time to bow out of it, as I still haven't had my questions answered, and there has been a level of acrimony I hadn't expected.

Anyway, it seems to me that FAIR is not in the business of bridge building and/or enhancing, repairing, sustaining human relationships. Their focus and priority is on an entirely different thing......the defense of Mormonism.

I understand that. My thought was that in this case--family members leaving--minimizing family conflict is a sort of defense of Mormonism. When someone leaves and there is a lot of conflict, there tends to be a lot of "collateral damage," in that family relationships are severely damaged, and those damaged, divided families are far less likely to be active, contributing members of the LDS church. To me, that's common sense.

My guess is that people like Scott see this panel discussion in terms of making sure that the apostate family member doesn't infect other family members with his or her apostasy. Such an approach would, I imagine, involve building walls between the family and the apostate. It might serve their immediate goals, but in the long run, I don't think such an approach helps these families at all.

Just like many other apologetic organizations, the "ism" in Mormonism is what trumps and divides the "Mormons" in Mormonism. Sadly, in my opinion, this is exactly why many (most/all?) of these apologetic organizations fail miserably in bringing forth love, compassion, kindness, understanding and support to the very people who are (or once where) Mormon. This failing is surely what we see as a result - Complex and often difficult/stressful family/friend relationships that folks are forced to navigate/manage.

I don't doubt that the FAIR folks believe they are performing a labor of love, compassion, kindness, and understanding, but I think you're right that when loyalty to the cause trumps personal relationships, these are the end results.

If you want to have a roundtable panel discussion about this particular topic (that has a chance to bring a net positive for all human beings involved) you must get rid of the "ism" and take your seats at the table as human beings that are Mormon and human beings that are ex-Mormon. This type of seating arrangement will provide (at least) a chance for constructive and positive discussion to be born.

Exactly right.

If you need information/material when debating online - FAIR is your ticket!
If you are trying to repair, resolve or keep a relationship with your daughter - FAIR is not your ticket!

Just my take!

I think your take may be right.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, let's hope that FAIR's decision to take notice of this problem is a positive sign. I would hate to think that they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here by coming up with something that is ultimately counterproductive. My first reaction is to be skeptical. I know these guys believe that they mean well, but past experience does not incline me to be sanguine about the great successes that will result from this new effort.

And, frankly, whatever is done will only be a bandaid effort. What is actually needed here is a longterm investment in serious, systematic discussion of LDS theology beginning with the doctrine of Christ, and also an ability to look past the narrow-minded ecclesiolatry and fundamentalism of the past to see more options for belief and participation. The simple truth is that not everyone wants to go to the upper-middle-class corporate paradise Mormonism offers its members. It is a tragic failure of imagination that allows people to impose this vision on others as though it truly were heaven for everyone.