Agreeing to Disagree

[_Runtu]

When it comes to Mormonism, I'm slowly becoming convinced that it's impossible to simply disagree with each other. Joseph Smith famously said something to the effect that once you were exposed to the "truth," (a.k.a. Mormonism) you were no longer on neutral ground; you were either with us or against us.

Last night on the other board some folks were going on about how the flood absolutely had to be global because "the prophets said so." I noted that no LDS scripture insists on a global flood, but that dogmatists like Joseph Fielding Smith added their own interpretation (the flood as baptism) and then insisted that their interpretation was doctrinal truth.

Rather than discuss this at all, the believers rebuked me for "defaming" and "disrespecting" the Lord's anointed. Apparently, this is the end of all conversation: if you disagree with a church leader, even in a trivial thing like the flood, you are evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Years ago one of my good friends was in a mission conference, and the visiting GA said that they needed to be giving the baptismal challenge during the second discussion. A couple of days later, he was playing basketball with the zone leaders and mentioned that he thought following the GA's counsel was absurd. The zone leaders freaked and made him pack his stuff and put him on a train to the mission home because he was clearly in apostasy. At least the mission president was reasonable enough to see the absurdity of the zone leaders' actions and put him on a train back to his area.

What's going on here? Why are people so quick to condemn even the smallest of disagreements? Juliann is always railing on us critics for being "black and white thinkers," but I see much more of that among the apologists over there.

Can't we just disagree with civility?

[_Blixa]

This kind of touches on what I was trying to say in the "Are message boards healthy" thread.

[_Yoda]

I agree with you, Runtu. ;)

I don't understand why, in a Church where we are supposedly taught to treat others with respect, that we can't be civil, and "agree to disagree".

Judgmentalism tends to rear its' ugly head. I think it's really sad.

It happens on both sides of the aisle. But, I tend to expect a little more out of Church members, as I think we should.

[_Scottie]

Now, be fair Runtu...

It's wasn't "apologists", it was Lightbearer.

I saw several apologists engaging in a healthly debate.

This is like saying "All those critics on MDB are arguing for a 9/11 conspiracy!!!!"

[_Runtu]

Now, be fair Runtu...

It's wasn't "apologists", it was Lightbearer.

I saw several apologists engaging in a healthly debate.

You're right, but that seems to be where things inevitably end up: we're wrong, and we're evil to boot.

[_Yoda]

Now, be fair Runtu...

It's wasn't "apologists", it was Lightbearer.

I saw several apologists engaging in a healthly debate.

You're right, but that seems to be where things inevitably end up: we're wrong, and we're evil to boot.

I guess as long as we're evil together.... *wish I had a smiley for an evil grin*

[_Scottie]

Now, be fair Runtu...

It's wasn't "apologists", it was Lightbearer.

I saw several apologists engaging in a healthly debate.

You're right, but that seems to be where things inevitably end up: we're wrong, and we're evil to boot.

Some of the more over-zealous apologists, like Hammer and Lightbringer are like this, but I don't think that most of them are.

It's pretty rare for either side to agree to disagree. Message boards are a breeding ground for "I'm right and you're wrong!"

[_JAK]

When it comes to Mormonism, I'm slowly becoming convinced that it's impossible to simply disagree with each other. Joseph Smith famously said something to the effect that once you were exposed to the "truth," (a.k.a. Mormonism) you were no longer on neutral ground; you were either with us or against us.

Last night on the other board some folks were going on about how the flood absolutely had to be global because "the prophets said so." I noted that no LDS scripture insists on a global flood, but that dogmatists like Joseph Fielding Smith added their own interpretation (the flood as baptism) and then insisted that their interpretation was doctrinal truth.

Rather than discuss this at all, the believers rebuked me for "defaming" and "disrespecting" the Lord's anointed. Apparently, this is the end of all conversation: if you disagree with a church leader, even in a trivial thing like the flood, you are evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Years ago one of my good friends was in a mission conference, and the visiting GA said that they needed to be giving the baptismal challenge during the second discussion. A couple of days later, he was playing basketball with the zone leaders and mentioned that he thought following the GA's counsel was absurd. The zone leaders freaked and made him pack his stuff and put him on a train to the mission home because he was clearly in apostasy. At least the mission president was reasonable enough to see the absurdity of the zone leaders' actions and put him on a train back to his area.

What's going on here? Why are people so quick to condemn even the smallest of disagreements? Juliann is always railing on us critics for being "black and white thinkers," but I see much more of that among the apologists over there.

Can't we just disagree with civility?

Runtu,

Their argument is as you state it is rather pointless. At the historical period in which the biblical flood story was constructed, there was no evidence of “global” in the context we use that term today. The earth was not perceived to be a globe. And the two “great lights” were our sun and our moon. The writers of biblical scripts had no concept of the universe with its billions and billions of suns (stars).

You might read my tangent-related response to Jersey Girl here. Without copying that post, you can link to it. I have placed in bold type the part of your observation to which my comment is related.

With regard to disagreement with civility, it is inherently linked to how agnostic one can be about one’s positions. If one insists that his interpretation and understanding is right, then anyone who disagrees with that must be wrong.

Particularly in areas of religious superstition, people tend to be most disagreeable and uncivil. Virtually all religious dogma as it insists on being correct above other religious dogma tends to be disagreeable.

If someone is more agnostic about his religious views, he may be able to say: I think I’m correct about {this}, but I might not be. That would be disagreement without being disagreeable.

Doctrinal shifts have historically been long in evolving. The first scientists who declared that the earth was a “globe” and spherical, were treated most harshly by the believers in the accepted scripture of the time. Some were imprisoned or killed. There was disagreement which had no room for tolerance. So while today, generally in the US, people don’t kill others for “disagreement,” they can be most disagreeable.

In Islam, people are still killing one another over different practices and beliefs which are evolving in that religion. That’s particularly the case as information and educational levels are at a minimum. There are well-educated Muslims in parts of the Western world who tend to be more agnostic about their religious views. They don’t have any intent to kill others with whom they disagree.

JAK

[_harmony]

Now, be fair Runtu...

It's wasn't "apologists", it was Lightbearer.

I saw several apologists engaging in a healthly debate.

You're right, but that seems to be where things inevitably end up: we're wrong, and we're evil to boot.

What I don't understand is why you persist in posting in a place where you know you're going to be told repeatedly that you are wrong and evil. That just seems a bit strange to me. Unless, of course, you post there just to needle Juliann. Then I can understand completely.

[_Runtu]

What I don't understand is why you persist in posting in a place where you know you're going to be told repeatedly that you are wrong and evil. That just seems a bit strange to me. Unless, of course, you post there just to needle Juliann. Then I can understand completely.

Mostly I guess I post to undo some of the damage I did as an apologist, though needling Juliann can be fun. LOL