mackay11 wrote: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:
Rob Osborn at MDDB wrote:Impossible to debate close minded folks.
Osborn is one of the most obtuse posters over there. He holds opinions on evolution, global flood, and science in general that deeply rooted in magic world view fantasy.
Runtu wrote:I take it back. Demonize is exactly the right word. Brother Lloyd not only says that a hypothetical ex-Mormon is likely to use such a panel discussion as an opportunity to attack the church, but he specifically said I would do that.
If nothing else, it's a good reminder of just how difficult it is to talk to people who consider you pond scum.
It sounds like pretty standard projection. Lloyd knows he couldn't be civil to an ex-mormon on the panel, so he projects his own pathology onto others.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote:It sounds like pretty standard projection. Gordon knows he couldn't be civil to an ex-mormon on the panel, so he projects his own pathology onto others.
for what it's worth, I'm talking about Scott Lloyd, not Scott Gordon. The latter has been unfailingly kind to me in every interaction I've had with him.
Runtu wrote: for what it's worth, I'm talking about Scott Lloyd
Some of his posts in that thread made my entire lower body itchy! (I don't remember him when I hung out there but It reminds me of why I very rarely read that board these days)
Honestly, I find that entire thread to be quite sad!
Brad Hudson wrote:It sounds like pretty standard projection. Gordon knows he couldn't be civil to an ex-mormon on the panel, so he projects his own pathology onto others.
for what it's worth, I'm talking about Scott Lloyd, not Scott Gordon. The latter has been unfailingly kind to me in every interaction I've had with him.
John it was unfortunate that Scott Lloyd chose to be in attack dog mode in the thread when you were clearly suggesting a path toward understanding. Back when I was allowed to start threads on MDDB I attempted several threads on how we might build bridges of understanding between our two worldviews. Sadly with each attempt, I was left with the impression that believers saw no possibility of reconciliation between our two camps. There did not seem to be a middle ground upon which to seek common understanding. I was attacked as being naïve for suggesting that there could ever be such a middle ground with apostates.
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace
"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick
“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
honorentheos wrote:I will say, in Scott's defense, his initial comments struck me as reasonable in tone and content. It seemed to me he was arguing it was the wrong audience, not that the idea itself was flawed.
I suspect he is right about that, at least in how the average Mormon with interest in FAIR might respond. Without a skilled moderator, I don't imagine the experience would be one remembered fondly by most who attended. Say what we will about the other side, I know I have been guilty of being drawn into heated arguments when my initial intention was anything but. The discussion on MDDB is itself a good example of how one possibly negative outcome might result from initially reasonable and well-intentioned participants.
Yes, it started out OK, but he quickly moved on to saying that an ex-Mormon wouldn't be able to resist attacking the church. Granted, I know a small number of people who would indeed see it as an opportunity to lash out, but then they aren't the kind of people that are likely to be invited to such a panel.
That is because to people like that, everyone that is critical of the church is a filthy anti-Mormon and can't be trusted. ""Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" Everything they do is evil. Reading his signature gives one a great insight into his persona.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.
Brad Hudson wrote:It sounds like pretty standard projection. Gordon knows he couldn't be civil to an ex-mormon on the panel, so he projects his own pathology onto others.
for what it's worth, I'm talking about Scott Lloyd, not Scott Gordon. The latter has been unfailingly kind to me in every interaction I've had with him.
My bad. Brain fart. I've corrected my post.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
sunstoned wrote:Osborn is one of the most obtuse posters over there. He holds opinions on evolution, global flood, and science in general that deeply rooted in magic world view fantasy.
His posts are amazing. I keep thinking he must be a troll. But he's so wonderfully consistent that I think he must mean it.
Runtu wrote: for what it's worth, I'm talking about Scott Lloyd
Some of his posts in that thread made my entire lower body itchy! (I don't remember him when I hung out there but It reminds me of why I very rarely read that board these days)
Honestly, I find that entire thread to be quite sad!
Peace, Ceeboo
So do I. What I found funny is that he singled me out as being someone who would not be welcome in such a panel, and then when I objected, he said, "Seems like it always ends up being about you." If you don't want to make something about a specific person, don't call out that specific person as an example of what you're talking about.
Craig Paxton wrote:John it was unfortunate that Scott Lloyd chose to be in attack dog mode in the thread when you were clearly suggesting a path toward understanding. Back when I was allowed to start threads on MDDB I attempted several threads on how we might build bridges of understanding between our two worldviews. Sadly with each attempt, I was left with the impression that believers saw no possibility of reconciliation between our two camps. There did not seem to be a middle ground upon which to seek common understanding. I was attacked as being naïve for suggesting that there could ever be such a middle ground with apostates.
To be fair, a couple of people on that thread gave me hope that at least they get it. People leave the church, and members are going to have to deal with that fact one way or another. It boggles my mind to think that some people aren't interested in other people's perspective when trying to learn how to deal with those same other people. It would be like preparing missionaries to go to, say, Bolivia, but telling Bolivians their perspective isn't welcome. So strange to me.
