Apologists and Critics at War?

[_ozemc]

As for the OP, no, it's not a war. Some people would like to think it is, as the serious nature of things means they can justify their hateful behavior. But in the end, Mormonism is not a matter of life and death. All it is is a way of life that people can choose to their good or to their detriment.

For me, I think it all boils down to just being honest about what it is the church teaches.

If the church teaches God was once a man, say so.

If the church teaches Jesus was Lucifer's spiritual brother, say so.

If the church teaches I can become a God with multiple wives, say so.

I don't have a problem with that being the belief; I disagree with it, but I don't condemn you for believing it. Its when it goes on and on with statements like this president was just "speaking as a man", or "well, it doesn't really mean that, it means this", or "I'm not sure the church teaches that", then it becomes an issue of trust and trying to be something you're not.

If you believe it, celebrate it. Other people might think it's strange, but, so what?

It almost seems as if, to me, an outsider, that many of the apologists are ashamed to be who they claim to be and try to hide it. Not all, but many.

Anyway, that's my .02.

[_Ray A]

No, I don't expect that. But let me address a couple of points. First of all, Pahoran has done very little posting here, on this board. Most of his posting is on MAD. On MAD, critics don't post comments like F*** Joseph Smith, etc. That might, indeed, be their sentiment, but that is not how they phrase things. And Pahoran has proven that he is capable of effectively thwarting opposing arguments solely based on his gospel knowledge.

If you are having a scholarly discussion with someone, is it, or is it not, more effective to stick to the topic at hand, and win the argument based on your knowledge, rather than by stooping to personal insults?

I think so. I don't think Pahoran is very effective in this regard. But by the same token, critics don't always write F*** Joseph Smith, even here, but that is basically what they mean, or would like to write. A true critic must be open to all viewpoints, and acknowledge where he/she is weak in argument. That's criticism, like film and book review critics do. Where rhetoric is employed to win arguments, Mormon or exmo, it's only a facade. I think Pahoran is very well informed, but the rhetoric can be heavy too.

Is it wrong for me to hold Pahoran to a higher standard...the same standard I hold myself to as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? I don't think so.

It's not wrong of you, because I think you're fairly consistent in this regard, but I'm talking about those who do attack Pahoran, while holding him to a standard they don't hold.

[_moksha]

Runtu “fragged” me yesterday. That’s ok though as I should have a BFG soon.

A BFG 10K could take out all the ex-mormon critics all at once. However, should we not spare a few just to keep us honest? Let's put Runtu and Blixa in the bunker first and then make a list for the others...
(by the way, what about having Pahoran remain outside as a look out?)

[_beastie]

Here's what happens:

1 - LDS church asserts that people only leave the church due to reasons connected to personal flaws: laziness, wanting to sin, never believing in the first place, pride, following satan

2- members lose faith and realize that the above reasons are fallacious, yet fear their Mormon friends and families think poorly of them due to the reasons outlined above

3- exmembers want to explain their reasons for leaving, to demonstrate they had legitimate reasons, that had nothing to do with laziness, wanting to sin, never believing in the first place, pride, or following satan

4 - members hearing the explanations offered feel that they and their religion are being "attacked"

And the cycle continues. If the cycle will ever stop, it must stop at step one.

[_BishopRic]

Here's what happens:

1 - LDS church asserts that people only leave the church due to reasons connected to personal flaws: laziness, wanting to sin, never believing in the first place, pride, following satan

2- members lose faith and realize that the above reasons are fallacious, yet fear their Mormon friends and families think poorly of them due to the reasons outlined above

3- exmembers want to explain their reasons for leaving, to demonstrate they had legitimate reasons, that had nothing to do with laziness, wanting to sin, never believing in the first place, pride, or following satan

4 - members hearing the explanations offered feel that they and their religion are being "attacked"

And the cycle continues. If the cycle will ever stop, it must stop at step one.

Well said! But I do like my wine...but never drank it until I left, so I guess that might mean I left to start drinking? Hmmmm.....

[_beastie]

Well said! But I do like my wine...but never drank it until I left, so I guess that might mean I left to start drinking? Hmmmm.....

According to some defenders of the faith, that's exactly what it means.

I once saw believers insist that behavior engaged in over a decade after leaving the church could be accurately cited as a reason for leaving the church.

[_Mister Scratch]

No, I don't expect that. But let me address a couple of points. First of all, Pahoran has done very little posting here, on this board. Most of his posting is on MAD. On MAD, critics don't post comments like F*** Joseph Smith, etc. That might, indeed, be their sentiment, but that is not how they phrase things. And Pahoran has proven that he is capable of effectively thwarting opposing arguments solely based on his gospel knowledge.

If you are having a scholarly discussion with someone, is it, or is it not, more effective to stick to the topic at hand, and win the argument based on your knowledge, rather than by stooping to personal insults?

I think so. I don't think Pahoran is very effective in this regard. But by the same token, critics don't always write F*** Joseph Smith, even here, but that is basically what they mean, or would like to write.

See what I mean, Ray? This is why I started the other thread. Either you possess a staggeringly unique ability to read minds, or you are talking out of your butt. This "critic" you are referring to is probably about as common as Wade's "Mr. D"---and let's not forget that, increasingly, your commentary resembles Wade's.

A true critic must be open to all viewpoints, and acknowledge where he/she is weak in argument.

Does the same hold true for Mopologists?

That's criticism, like film and book review critics do.

Wow... Where to start with this? Do you not know the difference between professional criticism and popular reviews?

Where rhetoric is employed to win arguments, Mormon or exmo, it's only a facade. I think Pahoran is very well informed, but the rhetoric can be heavy too.

Is it wrong for me to hold Pahoran to a higher standard...the same standard I hold myself to as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? I don't think so.

It's not wrong of you, because I think you're fairly consistent in this regard, but I'm talking about those who do attack Pahoran, while holding him to a standard they don't hold.

You would be pretty hard pressed to demonstrate that "many" critics who hit Pahoran's high-water mark of nastiness.

[_sunstoned]

I don't know Pahoran as well as some of you. My knowledge of him is only from MAD, as I didn't frequent the old Z board very often. From my MAD experience, I hold Pahoran in very low esteem. His posts are abusive and his personal attacks are unprovoked. He is also emboldened by the skewed moderation of MAD. I doubt his below the belt tactics would get him very far on a even playing field. His treatment of new posters is anything but Christlike.

[_harmony]

As far as personal insults are concerned, surely you can't argue that Pahoran's are any worse than the personal insults we've seen here against Mormons, and individual Mormons? Isn't that kind of looking at it from one point of view? When people write "F*** Christ, F*** Joseph Smith, F*** Mormonism, and post ridiculing cartoons of the prophets, what do you expect people like Pahoran to do, lie down and die in the gutter?

If Pahoran holds a temple recommend, is striving to be worthy to enter the CK, is trying to endure to the end, then the answer to this question is a resounding YES. It's called turning the other cheek, and is a requirement of entrance into the CK. Mormons are required to live the higher law, to be humble in all their doings, to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, or to suffer as no one else has to suffer.

If he doesn't hold a temple recommend, he's not living church standards anyway, so it's just one more thing to add to his detriment.

[_Ray A]

As far as personal insults are concerned, surely you can't argue that Pahoran's are any worse than the personal insults we've seen here against Mormons, and individual Mormons? Isn't that kind of looking at it from one point of view? When people write "F*** Christ, F*** Joseph Smith, F*** Mormonism, and post ridiculing cartoons of the prophets, what do you expect people like Pahoran to do, lie down and die in the gutter?

If Pahoran holds a temple recommend, is striving to be worthy to enter the CK, is trying to endure to the end, then the answer to this question is a resounding YES. It's called turning the other cheek, and is a requirement of entrance into the CK.

If he doesn't hold a temple recommend, he's not living church standards anyway, so it's just one more thing to add to his detriment.

Have you been "Christlike" in your "assessments" of DCP? Never judged?

D'ya hold a temple rec? Turned the "other cheek"?