Agreeing to Disagree

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Ray A

Re: Agreeing to Disagree

Post by _Ray A »

Runtu wrote: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.


This Sunstone article might be of interest: http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/ ... -27-45.pdf (PDF)
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Disagreement & Doctrinal Shift

Post by _JAK »

Scottie wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Scottie wrote: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!"


Scottie,

You’re correct in your conclusion regarding “pretty rare…”

Religious doctrine/dogma has historically shifted as genuine consensus of information has developed. It’s never the other way around. In superstition/religion there is clearly little or no consensus on a variety of doctrines. Hence, religious dogma slowly yields to scientific discovery, and doctrines shift as different interpretations provide wiggle room for the pundits of religious dogma.

Generally, that process is slow and requires generational change. (I'm sure you knew this previously.)

JAK
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Scottie wrote: Message boards are a breeding ground for "I'm right and you're wrong!"


true, but the Mormon ones have a flavor all their own...
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Runtu wrote:
Scottie wrote: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.


If you want to feel more like a civilized forum I recommend you go to an Emo, Video Game Debate, Anorexia, Vampire, or ID board. You might even come see this place as an island of sanity and comfort in a sad, sad world.

For an example of relative sanity: http://youtube.com/watch?v=b11ZU2HceDg
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

I'm really discouraged at the us vs. them mentality. No matter where it manifests. Religion is such a personal issue, I suppose -- yet I don't really understand why?

It's a belief system. Why is it taken so personally? When Wade was equating discussing religion to a personal smear against a person it really surprised me and at the same time was rather illuminating. It's not just something that some subscribe to -- it is them. I don't know if that's a healthy mentality.I can see that discussing various religions as a positive step to understanding differences and similarities and to better understand human nature to subscribe to some faith system. When all discussions are taken as a personal affront I think it's time to step back and perhaps evaluate why you feel that way?

I think zealots, no matter which stripe, are usually rabid and difficult to discuss anything with in a sensible manner. Yet, I do see some sensible posters on MAD -- just the overly fanatic ones seem to stand out more. Of course the same is seen here.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Moniker wrote:I'm really discouraged at the us vs. them mentality. No matter where it manifests. Religion is such a personal issue, I suppose -- yet I don't really understand why?

It's a belief system. Why is it taken so personally? When Wade was equating discussing religion to a personal smear against a person it really surprised me and at the same time was rather illuminating. It's not just something that some subscribe to -- it is them. I don't know if that's a healthy mentality.I can see that discussing various religions as a positive step to understanding differences and similarities and to better understand human nature to subscribe to some faith system. When all discussions are taken as a personal affront I think it's time to step back and perhaps evaluate why you feel that way?

I think zealots, no matter which stripe, are usually rabid and difficult to discuss anything with in a sensible manner. Yet, I do see some sensible posters on MAD -- just the overly fanatic ones seem to stand out more. Of course the same is seen here.


I think there's something unique about Mormon discussion boards that is tied to Mormon history. I alluded to this in my post on the "Is Posting Healthy" thread, but I didn't really develop my point. I agree with Nehor that there are flashpoints of web hostility that are "worse" than the ones we've been discussing (I've been on some incredibly acrimonious academic lists/message boards), but I still find the level of personal attack coupled with authoritarian judgementalism unique to the "Mormon interwebs." Possibly, if I had more experience with other online discussions of conservative or fundamentalist religions I would see similarities between them, or not---maybe I am myopic in this regard...

(sorry just a quick post-by)
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Agreeing to Disagree

Post by _wenglund »

Runtu wrote:Can't we just disagree with civility?


That is a wonderful question for consideration. However, when you speak of "we", do you have in mind the participants on this board?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Agreeing to Disagree

Post by _Runtu »

wenglund wrote:
Runtu wrote:Can't we just disagree with civility?


That is a wonderful question for consideration. However, when you speak of "we", do you have in mind the participants on this board?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Yes, Wade, I mean "us" as in those of us who find ourselves on opposite sides of the Mormon fence. And that includes us on this board.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

Moniker wrote:It's a belief system. Why is it taken so personally? When Wade was equating discussing religion to a personal smear against a person it really surprised me and at the same time was rather illuminating. It's not just something that some subscribe to -- it is them.


I don't know that it always is taken personally--I know I don't. It depends much on how and why the belief system is being discussed.

But, to understand why certain discussion may be taken personally, it to may help to recognize that our faith is more than just a belief system. To many of us, it is a way of life and, in part, a way of defining who and what we are (individually and collectively).

I don't know if that's a healthy mentality. I can see that discussing various religions as a positive step to understanding differences and similarities and to better understand human nature to subscribe to some faith system. When all discussions are taken as a personal affront I think it's time to step back and perhaps evaluate why you feel that way?


Perhaps it may be best to first understand that it is inaccurate to assume that "all discussions are taken as a personal affront". They aren't.

Second, it may help to discipher why some discussions are taken personally, and why some aren't.

Once that is done, then perhaps one may be in a better position to determine whether it is healthy or not, and whether there is a need to step back or not.

I would be more than happy to explore the second step and beyond with you.

I think zealots, no matter which stripe, are usually rabid and difficult to discuss anything with in a sensible manner. Yet, I do see some sensible posters on MAD -- just the overly fanatic ones seem to stand out more. Of course the same is seen here.


Since you envoked my name earlier, I am wondering if you incude me among the "zealots" who are "usually rabid and difficult to discuss anything with in a sensible manner."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Agreeing to Disagree

Post by _wenglund »

Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Runtu wrote:Can't we just disagree with civility?


That is a wonderful question for consideration. However, when you speak of "we", do you have in mind the participants on this board?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Yes, Wade, I mean "us" as in those of us who find ourselves on opposite sides of the Mormon fence. And that includes us on this board.


I figured as much...but I wasn't sure given that the discussion here seem mostly, if not eclusively, to have been about "them". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Post Reply