Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

mms wrote:
wenglund wrote:I do wish you well on your test of faith and spiritual journey.

For what it is worth, I have found the following to be of help to me when my faith has been challenged:

1. Put the faith-trial and decisionmaking process into context. In effect, figure out what all the purposes, intents, functions, role, and value the Church is or might be in my life and the life of my family.
2. Within that context, fairly weigh all factors about the Church in the balance. In other words, create a mental list of what I may find right and workable about the Church (faith promoting) as well as what I find troubling and wrong (faith troubling), and weigh them against each other.
3. Within that same context, direct my evaluations internally as well as externally--focusing as much if not more on my own internal rightness and wrongness, as well as the same regarding the Church.
4. Make the decisionmaking processes about choicing the best of multiple viable options, rather than about simply negating a single existing option. In other words, comparatively evaluate the Church in relation to other proven developmental systems (secular and religious) in effort to determine which individually or in combination will enable me and my family to become the very best people possible--in terms of happiness, love, understanding (both physically and spiritually), respect, ability, and being responsible and mature

In other words, I put the trial of my faith in the mix of my whole life's journey, and evaluate it in terms of the destination I have chosen for myself. Metaphorically speaking, if I have some doubts about a specific aspect of a complex navigational devise (such as the Church), I look at the importance and meaning of that specific aspect in relation to the entirely of the complex navigation devise and other navigational options (such as other religious and secular institutions), so as to avoid unwittingly jettisoning a viable navigational devise and finding myself without direction and tossed to and fro by the winds, waves, and currents of public opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


This is fantastic. Again, Wade, for some reason the way you have presented things since I have been around (not too long) speaks to my mind quite clearly (I think this may be because you do not spend time taking a position, but trying to figure out what the concerns are so that they may be addressed in the most reasonable and methodical way) and what you have written, here, is extremely valuable in my opinion. I have printed it and will use it. I expect that you have provided it to others? If not, keep it handy. A very understandable, thorough, unbiased approach.


I am very gratified that you would think so.

I wish that I had figured this out some time ago, and thus saved myself from wasting years and years of my life going nowhere but down in the seemingly bottomless pit of back-and-forth blame, jugementalism, and criticism (particularly on cyberboards), when really what I and most everyone else wanted is to resolve our respective challenges and move forward in life. But, if I can now help others to learn from my huge mistake, and avoid wasting years or months or days of their life in that bottomless pit, then that would make me very happy. It is just that the bottomless pit can be extrodinarily alurring and seemingly justified and warranted. So, my solution-oriented message is up against some pretty stiff competition--not to mention being disadvantaged by my understandable lack of credibility that I earned over years in the bottomless pit. ;-)

I feel I must also give some credit to Dr. Phil and the title of his book, "Doing what Works, Doing What matters", that became a wake-up call for me a while back.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:Isn't this rather cowardly and hypocritical, to pretend to be supportive of the church in your home stake, but attack it anonymously here?

How has he "attacked" the Church?

I, by contrast, started studying anti-Mormon literature with the encouragement of my mission president while a missionary in Illinois. I had the great fortune of having access to the private collections of Kimball Young at Northwestern and Gerald Urban at Trinity College in Deerfield, as well as access to Mr. Urban and NIV translators expert in anti-Mormon theory.

Sounds like you didn't work very hard on your mission.

Since then, no priesthood leader has ever discouraged me from reading or writing anything about Church history.

Have they encouraged it?

And, I use my own name when I post.

Well, other than when you post as "Plutarch," "Bishop Lee," or "Enter the Dragon," but I'm just quibbling ....

And, my feelings and writings are as consistent here as they are in Church on Sunday.

Which is what's so scary about you -- you act like an anti-Christ on this bb; do you act the same way in your role as bishop?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

asbestosman wrote:So are people who were once fully active, believing members but change their minds and leave the church hypocrites too?

That's not the situation we're talking about with Bob. His focus on this bb, for as long as I can remember, is to attack anyone who posts with a moniker, but yet he has done the same himself.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:I am pleased to report that in the past I have always given my real name on the boards irrespective of whether I posted with a pseudonym or not; I often pasted my name on the personal details or even on the sig file. Same way over on MAD; I post and always posted as rcrocket.

Bull.

I point out that when I was using a pseudonym on this Board and you started a major campaign to smear the reputation of Dr. Peterson by pointing to a one-year anniversary of a thread started on MAD, you pointed out that you knew that I had been the originator that thread on MAD. You couldn't have known that without knowing my real name.

First, Mr. Scratch brought up the anniversary, not me. Second, I knew it was you because of what you have written in the past, not because you used your real name.

And, it really isn't a one-note issue.

If you are known for one theme on this bb, it's your fixation on the "evils" of Internet anonymity.

I post on lots of different topics ...

But, yet, you always seem to throw in the anonymity "observation." Go figure ....

I don't think you should be maligning persons such as Dr. Peterson or others without having the courage to give your name out.

I've "maligned" no one. I simply have pointed out where he's been wrong based on his own words.

There really is no need to be impressed with the fact that I'm a jury trial lawyer. I only used that reference to point out my experience that people tend to be desireous of honesty, and that I have good thoughts about the bona fides of most people who operate under their own name.

You sure seem to like to remind everyone that you're a "trial lawyer" -- it was even in the title of your review of Bagley. Face it, Bob, for some odd reason being a lawyer makes you feel good about yourself. That's fine, I guess, but repeating it over and over is a bit embarrassing.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

rcrocket wrote:
I am pleased to report that in the past I have always given my real name on the boards irrespective of whether I posted with a pseudonym or not; I often pasted my name on the personal details or even on the sig file. Same way over on MAD; I post and always posted as rcrocket.

Bull.


Good retort. But, the truth is that I have always disclosed my name. Always.

But, yet, you always seem to throw in the anonymity "observation." Go figure ....


Well, if somebody uses vulgarity to make a point in a post, I am likely to complain about lack of civility or courtesy.

I've "maligned" no one. I simply have pointed out where he's been wrong based on his own words.


You've very much maligned him. Or, libeled him would be an "apt" [to use a favorite Scratch phrase] description. But, nobody can call you on it because you are anonymous.

You sure seem to like to remind everyone that you're a "trial lawyer" -- it was even in the title of your review of Bagley. Face it, Bob, for some odd reason being a lawyer makes you feel good about yourself. That's fine, I guess, but repeating it over and over is a bit embarrassing.


I will be very careful not to bring it up in the future. Certainly I do not bring out the fact, which you like to rub my nose in, that I am a bishop. But, I apologize for personal offense I have hurled your way and will do my best to act the way you think a bishop ought to act.

And, yes, I could have worked harder on my mission. And, yes, I have been encouraged in my occasional writings.

rcrocket
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:Good retort. But, the truth is that I have always disclosed my name. Always.

Still bull.

But, yet, you always seem to throw in the anonymity "observation." Go figure ....

Well, if somebody uses vulgarity to make a point in a post, I am likely to complain about lack of civility or courtesy.

Ah, Bob finally admits to something.

I've "maligned" no one. I simply have pointed out where he's been wrong based on his own words.

You've very much maligned him. Or, libeled him would be an "apt" [to use a favorite Scratch phrase] description. But, nobody can call you on it because you are anonymous.

How have I "maligned" or "libeled" someone when my observations are based on his own words? Truth is an absolute defense, my dear counselor.

But, I apologize for personal offense I have hurled your way and will do my best to act the way you think a bishop ought to act.

Apology accepted. Good luck in your efforts to change.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I've "maligned" no one. I simply have pointed out where he's been wrong based on his own words.

You've very much maligned him. Or, libeled him would be an "apt" [to use a favorite Scratch phrase] description. But, nobody can call you on it because you are anonymous.[/quote]
How have I "maligned" or "libeled" someone when my observations are based on his own words? Truth is an absolute defense, my dear counselor.

[quote]

It is pretty apparent in the way you smear him over the Quinn "outing," particularly when I have first-hand eyewitness information to rebut your meritless charges. Quinn outed himself long before Dr. Peterson purportedly has some sort of conversation with a stake president about it. I know the truth of your smearing and disgusting anonymous behavior. It is really too bad; Dr. Peterson is a swell guy who doesn't deserve what you are giving him. Anonymously, I might add.

rcrocket
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:It is pretty apparent in the way you smear him over the Quinn "outing," particularly when I have first-hand eyewitness information to rebut your meritless charges.

Oh, yeah, your claim of seeing Quinn and "his mate" holding hands at the MHA conference back in 1980 or 1981; funny how you are the only one to have made this claim.

Quinn outed himself long before Dr. Peterson purportedly has some sort of conversation with a stake president about it.

No, he didn't -- the only "outing" was the rumor mill, of which you were a part.

It is really too bad; Dr. Peterson is a swell guy who doesn't deserve what you are giving him.

I'm sure he is a "swell guy." My only point was to acknowledge his participation in discussing Quinn's private sex life behind his back.

Anonymously, I might add.

One-note wonder Bob strikes again!
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

rcrocket wrote:It is pretty apparent in the way you smear him over the Quinn "outing," particularly when I have first-hand eyewitness information to rebut your meritless charges.


There are a couple of problems with this. A) No one has ever corroborated your "eyewitness information," and moreover, the facts of Quinn's biography suggest that you were engaging in vicious speculation and gossip. B) You have demonstrated a penchant for manipulating evidence (i.e., the MMM letter), which rather dampens your credibility, I'm afraid.

Quinn outed himself long before Dr. Peterson purportedly has some sort of conversation with a stake president about it.


There is zero documentary evidence to support this. Zilch. Nada.

I know the truth of your smearing and disgusting anonymous behavior. It is really too bad; Dr. Peterson is a swell guy who doesn't deserve what you are giving him. Anonymously, I might add.

rcrocket


I agree that DCP is a "swell" guy. He most definitely deserves the criticism and scrutiny he receives, however. Only fitting for a bigot, wouldn't you say? ; )
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi mms, you wrote:
I was not concerned about James or anyone else telling of his/her experience, and I certainly appreciate all who have, but if you look at the post I responded to, it specifically asked for evidence of the GA's being "traitors". I think you would have to agree that such a discussion would be more appropriate in another thread. I think you probably knew that and simply felt like arguing your point, for some reason. Regardless, James was succinct in his response and I appreciate that. (UL added by RM)


Little puzzled mms?? What made you think, "...(I) simply felt like arguing..." Not my nature, or style, LOL ;-) I guess possibly you took the GA traitor comment more seriously than I? One of those statements better let pass, in my experience. Ya know what i mean?

I am glad the thread has been helpful for you. There are some REALLY good folks here! Mo's ExMo's & NoMo's. I can't seem to get back to your post i'm replying to?? There was something else i wanted to address. Have to get back later. Warm regards, Roger (Thanks Jason :-)
Post Reply