Lemmie wrote:Maybe we are coming to the heart of this. I don't know others' intent, but personally, I don't ever discuss lds doctrine with the intent of changing an lds person's behavior. Discussing the logic, its impact on people, the havoc wreaked on the intellect in trying to reconcile things, that's what I find interesting. Using your example, it has never once crossed my mind to make a post with the intent of changing a poster like mg's mind. As I have stated before, my objection to his posts has nothing to do with his religion, and everything to do with his faulty logic and disruptive derailments.
In that sense, I don't see threads like this as an attack on Mormon- or lds-identifying people, but rather a discussion on Mormon or lds topics.
Ah, OK. Yes, I can see that. And, to be clear, I am not pointing at you as an example of someone who attacks Mormonism or tries to shame people out of being Mormon. I would also agree that MG did not post this thread to attack Mormonism. I do think, however, that the atmosphere created by a lot of responses to these threads becomes so hostile that it gets difficult to distinguish between "discussion" and verbal assault.
I understand that my characterization of things going on here is going to be imprecise. To the extent that they touch on things that do happen in this forum, my observations may be useful to others who are thinking through what they are doing here. That said, I would never claim to have captured the whole truth of MDB. It is helpful for me to have you and others explain where you are coming from so I can test my hypotheses.
I should also say that I understand something of where the hostility (of some posters) is coming from. I know a little bit about my dear friend Shulem and also Mormonicious. I am not saying that I have them figured out. I say I sympathize with their pain and their desire to strike out at the LDS Church to some extent. I hope I have not gone too far in making that claim. It is really difficult to stomach MG's apparently daft approach to things when the damage done is so palpable and, in some cases, downright horrific.
Please do not take my comments as a call to stop the hostility. I am happy to observe the hostility, talk about the hostility, explore the hostility, etc. I do not intend to tell others what they should do with their hostility. If what I am saying is not for your ears at the moment, please do ignore it. I would prefer that others use this forum to do what they like, within, of course, the rules and limits that Dr. Shades and his team enforce.
Fair enough, thank you for your further thoughts on this. I know I've engaged in some recent sniping on this topic, and I apologize for that! I consider Shulem a dear friend also, and while I don't know Mormonicious as well, I can certainly empathize with their pain, as well as many others who have mentioned parts of their stories here and there.
Exiled wrote: I guess the problem is are you really open to light and truth showing you that Mormonism isn't what it claims to be?
It's not really a problem for me. I've been cognizant/aware of the 'light and truth' outcomes/conclusions which come from interpretive results received through the personal quests of those who consider themselves to be non-believers in the restoration narrative for many years. I would simply ask that you not be disappointed or even surprised that there are those that have chosen to believe who are at the same time open to light and truth from whatever source it may come.
Personally, I believe that it is critical/important to try and keep a balance...in regards to sources of information...to act as a counterbalance to the natural tendency humans have to focus on the sensational and nay saying points of view. I mean, look at the cable news, what is focused on? The sensational and naysayers. On both sides.
This board is weighed heavily in the direction that nay sayers would like it to go. It might come as a surprise to those folks that there are actually a lot of believers and practicing LDS folks who have done due diligence as they have come to a reasoned faith. A book that I read a while back that may be of help to some folks is this one:
Let Your Hearts and Mind Expand by Thomas F. Rogers
Lemmie wrote:One of the more amusing aspects of this board is the relentless attack against those who relentlessly attack a narrow definition of a Mormon. Even when no one relentlessly attacked a Mormon, let alone a narrow one.
I like reading Jana Reiss' posts, and thought the one I excerpted had a pretty positive message, but it seems to have riled you up, kishkumen. What didn't you like about her post?
Pardon me for missing this, Lemmie.
I am not sure why you think that Jana Riess has me riled up. If you can help me figure out what gave you that idea, I would appreciate it.
I think we crossed wires on that one, sorry. You mentioned cafeteria religion and attacks on a narrow definition of Mormonism the post right after I quoted her saying something about cafeteria spiritualism and I thought it was her piece that lead to that.
Lemmie wrote:Discussing the logic, its impact on people, the havoc wreaked on the intellect in trying to reconcile things, that's what find interesting.
I will take exception to reconciliation wreaking havoc on the intellect. If anything I believe it to be the opposite.
The glory of God is intelligence, in other words, light and truth. From where ever and whomever it comes.
Regards, MG
You are taking my words out of context. I was not referring to the 'reconciliation' as you are using the term, nor am I referring to finding 'truth.' My full quote made the intent clear:
lemmie wrote:Maybe we are coming to the heart of this. I don't know others' intent, but personally, I don't ever discuss lds doctrine with the intent of changing an lds person's behavior. Discussing the logic, its impact on people, the havoc wreaked on the intellect in trying to reconcile things, that's what I find interesting. Using your example, it has never once crossed my mind to make a post with the intent of changing a poster like mg's mind. As I have stated before, my objection to his posts has nothing to do with his religion, and everything to do with his faulty logic and disruptive derailments.
Themis wrote:...[MG] tend[s] to only view apologetic sources...
I'll take exception to this. Nowadays that may be a bit closer to the truth. But over the years I've been there, done that.
Regards, MG
It's just hard to believe having seen many posts over the years showing a real lack of understanding of many LDS issues. Book of Abraham being the big one you have admitted to being fairly ignorant about. Also admitting you stick to apologetic materials today shows a closed mind that does not understand the most accurate view of any issue can only be had by looking at all the information available, regardless it's source.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kishkumen wrote:I will give him credit for being openminded in his own way. I don't see the harm in that. People around here get frustrated to find he is not openminded in the way he "ought to be." In other words, he does not meet our community standard for openminded-ness.
I don't see how we can have a variety of ways to be open minded. I believe everyone is fairly open-minded on at least one issue, but most seem fairly closed minded on a number of issues usually involving religion or politics. MG is more open to some variety of Mormonism, but doesn't show openness to Joseph being a fraud as the evidence clearly points to. The one interesting observation in my life is any issue that has good evidence, and no major bias to reject where the evidence points to, tends to have close to universal acceptance.
He ought to be given credit for sticking it out here, a place that it so completely hostile to his religion that most LDS Mormons cannot abide here for long.
I would somewhat agree. The bigger problem though for believing members is not the hostility they get from some people here, but cold hard facts. I've known a lot of believing members who love hostile sites.
Lemmie wrote:I think we crossed wires on that one, sorry. You mentioned cafeteria religion and attacks on a narrow definition of Mormonism the post right after I quoted her saying something about cafeteria spiritualism and I thought it was her piece that lead to that.
Ah, OK. I liked Riess's piece. It did not rile me up. No worries. I say a lot of confusing things.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Themis wrote:I don't see how we can have a variety of ways to be open minded. I believe everyone is fairly open-minded on at least one issue, but most seem fairly closed minded on a number of issues usually involving religion or politics. MG is more open to some variety of Mormonism, but doesn't show openness to Joseph being a fraud as the evidence clearly points to. The one interesting observation in my life is any issue that has good evidence, and no major bias to reject where the evidence points to, tends to have close to universal acceptance.
Huh. OK. Well, we are different in that way, I suppose. Everyone likes to imagine she or he is openminded. I give people credit for trying. I'm just not sure we all succeed to the degree we imagine we do. I agree that people are a lot more close-minded on religion and politics than they would like to think. Heck, I am sure I am.
I would somewhat agree. The bigger problem though for believing members is not the hostility they get from some people here, but cold hard facts. I've known a lot of believing members who love hostile sites.
Yeah, maybe. Some people seem to be able to handle the cold hard facts and hold onto faith.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Lemmie wrote:I think we crossed wires on that one, sorry. You mentioned cafeteria religion and attacks on a narrow definition of Mormonism the post right after I quoted her saying something about cafeteria spiritualism and I thought it was her piece that lead to that.
Ah, OK. I liked Riess's piece. It did not rile me up. No worries. I say a lot of confusing things.
Good to know, I like her pieces also, generally. Her perspective on millennials is always interesting to read.
