D&C 127:2

[Limnor]

Summary: A warm, doughnut-flavored praise sandwich that keeps the hierarchy intact while quietly reframing it as “tradition.”

Lol, but not by me. When you quote a quote, you lose the inner reference. Try this:

Summary: A warm, doughnut-flavored praise sandwich that keeps the hierarchy intact while quietly reframing it as “tradition.”

Fixed!

[Equality]

It’s not that critics feel guilt—I agree there’s no evidence of that. I’m describing how sometimes honest inquiry can be reframed as coming from a place of guilt, which is a different thing entirely.

In any case, how relevant is it whether or not critics feel guilt (presumably about criticising Mormon beliefs)?

Should Mormons feel guilt about criticising the beliefs of others? Should missionaries feel guilt about trying to lead people away from their previous religion, or non-religion?

I can only see special pleading as distinguishing between the two sides in this respect - it's OK for Mormons because they have the truth.

Exatamente.

When I left the church in 2008, the bishop and stake president sat me down and asked me outright not to talk to any member of the ward about my doubts or feelings about the church. I just sort of stared blankly and said, "OK, I will do that of the church brings home the (then) 60,000 missionaries who were out there full time telling everyone they met to "doubt their doubts" about their current faith.

[malkie]

In any case, how relevant is it whether or not critics feel guilt (presumably about criticising Mormon beliefs)?

Should Mormons feel guilt about criticising the beliefs of others? Should missionaries feel guilt about trying to lead people away from their previous religion, or non-religion?

I can only see special pleading as distinguishing between the two sides in this respect - it's OK for Mormons because they have the truth.

Exatamente.

When I left the church in 2008, the bishop and stake president sat me down and asked me outright not to talk to any member of the ward about my doubts or feelings about the church. I just sort of stared blankly and said, "OK, I will do that of the church brings home the (then) 60,000 missionaries who were out there full time telling everyone they met to "doubt their doubts" about their current faith.

Your bishop and stake president were clearly in the wrong. They should have paid attention to what one one-time apostle of the church said:

If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._Reuben_Clark

Critics who directly or indirectly cause people - members, investigators, or others - to look into the claims of the church are performing a service.

[malkie]

I'm repeating the comment below in the hope of getting MG to explain what he thought this bit of the discussion was about.

I suppose I could have just said "Bumping for MG", but I just had a nap and it seems to have made me loquacious.

I'm literally speaking of 'members of the church', that is, the run of the mill member or missionary. I can't imagine that the 'tactic' of dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs are going to bring them closer to the gospel of Christ. I've previously said that conversion is an individual matter between a person and their God.

The decision to de-convert is also a personal decision that one makes.

malkie, I'm not criticizing your de-conversion. For you, it was apparently the 'right choice'. We all do the best we can with the information and life experience and natural inclinations that make us who we are. That's true for believers and unbelievers.

Regards,
MG

Firstly, my comments had absolutely nothing to do with me, or my "de-conversion'. I found that statement quite astounding, and really don't know what made you jump to that incorrect conclusion. If that assumption underlies anything else you said, then perhaps you want to reconsider.
I'm also literally speaking of 'members of the church', that is, the run of the mill member or missionary.

You seem to be shifting the goalposts here.

In this current comment that I'm quoting you refer to: "dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs". Earlier you said: "if [members] were to ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others, ...". Nothing at all about criticising the beliefs of their friends and/or contacts.

So could you please clarify who you are talking about - who exactly is doing the criticising, and who is the object of the criticism, because to me, the plain reading of these two statements is quite different.

Did my quoting of Joseph Smith and Bruce McConkie not give you a clue that I was responding to your previous comment about members "criticiz[ing] the beliefs of others", and not to your yet-to-be-made comment about "dissing or criticizing a friend's belief."

[I Have Questions]

For MG 2.0, becoming unconverted from Catholicism to join Mormonism is to be applauded. It’s a sign of strength and of spiritual improvement. Becoming unconverted from Mormonism to join Catholicism is to be condemned. It’s a sign of weakness, or laziness, of a desire to sin.

It’s an intellectually dishonest way of looking at things.

It is also worth noting that MG 2.0 supports a body of young people going around the world actively seeking to “unconvert” people from their current religious belief. When he says “believers and unbelievers” he means “active Mormons and everyone else”.

[MG 2.0]

I'm repeating the comment below in the hope of getting MG to explain what he thought this bit of the discussion was about.

I suppose I could have just said "Bumping for MG", but I just had a nap and it seems to have made me loquacious.

I'm literally speaking of 'members of the church', that is, the run of the mill member or missionary. I can't imagine that the 'tactic' of dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs are going to bring them closer to the gospel of Christ. I've previously said that conversion is an individual matter between a person and their God.

The decision to de-convert is also a personal decision that one makes.

malkie, I'm not criticizing your de-conversion. For you, it was apparently the 'right choice'. We all do the best we can with the information and life experience and natural inclinations that make us who we are. That's true for believers and unbelievers.

Regards,
MG

Firstly, my comments had absolutely nothing to do with me, or my "de-conversion'. I found that statement quite astounding, and really don't know what made you jump to that incorrect conclusion. If that assumption underlies anything else you said, then perhaps you want to reconsider.
I'm also literally speaking of 'members of the church', that is, the run of the mill member or missionary.

You seem to be shifting the goalposts here.

In this current comment that I'm quoting you refer to: "dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs". Earlier you said: "if [members] were to ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others, ...". Nothing at all about criticising the beliefs of their friends and/or contacts.

So could you please clarify who you are talking about - who exactly is doing the criticising, and who is the object of the criticism, because to me, the plain reading of these two statements is quite different.

Did my quoting of Joseph Smith and Bruce McConkie not give you a clue that I was responding to your previous comment about members "criticiz[ing] the beliefs of others", and not to your yet-to-be-made comment about "dissing or criticizing a friend's belief."

My wording did shift between 'criticizing others' and 'criticizing friends'. That muddied the waters. For clarification it should be said that members OR missionaries criticizing the beliefs or non-beliefs of others...friend or stranger...doesn't end up being a productive way of bringing people closer to the gospel. Back in the day when I was on my mission that would have been called "bashing".

The distinction between ‘others’ and ‘friends’ wasn’t meant to change the scope, only to illustrate that criticism in any context is counterproductive.

I will again repeat that, "We all do the best we can with the information and life experience and natural inclinations that make us who we are. That's true for believers and unbelievers."

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I'm repeating the comment below in the hope of getting MG to explain what he thought this bit of the discussion was about.

I suppose I could have just said "Bumping for MG", but I just had a nap and it seems to have made me loquacious.

Firstly, my comments had absolutely nothing to do with me, or my "de-conversion'. I found that statement quite astounding, and really don't know what made you jump to that incorrect conclusion. If that assumption underlies anything else you said, then perhaps you want to reconsider.
I'm also literally speaking of 'members of the church', that is, the run of the mill member or missionary.

You seem to be shifting the goalposts here.

In this current comment that I'm quoting you refer to: "dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs". Earlier you said: "if [members] were to ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others, ...". Nothing at all about criticising the beliefs of their friends and/or contacts.

So could you please clarify who you are talking about - who exactly is doing the criticising, and who is the object of the criticism, because to me, the plain reading of these two statements is quite different.

Did my quoting of Joseph Smith and Bruce McConkie not give you a clue that I was responding to your previous comment about members "criticiz[ing] the beliefs of others", and not to your yet-to-be-made comment about "dissing or criticizing a friend's belief."

My wording did shift between 'criticizing others' and 'criticizing friends'. That muddied the waters. For clarification it should be said that members OR missionaries criticizing the beliefs or non-beliefs of others...friend or stranger...doesn't end up being a productive way of bringing people closer to the gospel. Back in the day when I was on my mission that would have been called "bashing".

The distinction between ‘others’ and ‘friends’ wasn’t meant to change the scope, only to illustrate that criticism in any context is counterproductive.

I will again repeat that, "We all do the best we can with the information and life experience and natural inclinations that make us who we are. That's true for believers and unbelievers."

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I wonder, though, if there's anything useful we can discuss without criticizing the the beliefs or non-beliefs of others, either directly or indirectly. Feel free to disagree with my belief about that idea.

[Limnor]

For clarification it should be said that members OR missionaries criticizing the beliefs or non-beliefs of others...friend or stranger...doesn't end up being a productive way of bringing people closer to the gospel.

I think someone said it earlier in the thread but the problem with this is that it ignores what missionaries actually do.

Missionaries ask investigators to read a book that specifically critiques others’ beliefs by saying churches are in apostasy, teach incorrect doctrines, and lack authority.

If you don’t agree with that approach, perhaps a proposal to change the missionary program is appropriate? Or maybe a retroactive change to the book.

[MG 2.0]

For clarification it should be said that members OR missionaries criticizing the beliefs or non-beliefs of others...friend or stranger...doesn't end up being a productive way of bringing people closer to the gospel.

I think someone said it earlier in the thread but the problem with this is that it ignores what missionaries actually do.

Missionaries ask investigators to read a book that specifically critiques others’ beliefs by saying churches are in apostasy, teach incorrect doctrines, and lack authority.

If you don’t agree with that approach, perhaps a proposal to change the missionary program is appropriate? Or maybe a retroactive change to the book.

Saying something doesn't make it true, right? In other words, those that listen (first they have to listen, choice number one) to the message of the Restoration and do not believe it to be true then go their own way (choice number two). No one (missionary or regular member) forces them into the church or to believe in the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

As has been said many times, believing in and having a hope in Christ through reading the Book of Mormon and choosing to be baptized is a personal choice. And if a person believes that it is all a lie...they walk away. Except for those on this board (tongue planted firmly in cheek...mostly).

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Saying something doesn't make it true, right? In other words, those that listen (first they have to listen, choice number one) to the message of the Restoration and do not believe it to be true then go their own way (choice number two). No one (missionary or regular member) forces them into the church or to believe in the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

As has been said many times, believing in and having a hope in Christ through reading the Book of Mormon and choosing to be baptized is a personal choice. And if a person believes that it is all a lie...they walk away. Except for those on this board (tongue planted firmly in cheek...mostly).

Regards,
MG

The issue isn’t coercion, it’s criticism.

I don’t want to walk away—I find the system fascinating and want to understand more. For example, you saying “saying something doesn’t make it true” reads like it lets you dismiss the criticism without engaging it. Is that built in?

Also, when you say members shouldn’t “criticize a friend’s beliefs,” but then defend a system that builds criticism of other beliefs into its core message, it reads like there is criticism you approve of and criticism you don’t.

Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but I’d like to understand better, because I think a faith system can be strengthened through opposition, if you will.