Agreeing to Disagree

[_Runtu]

Those who they are on God's side include faithful LDS. I think probably many other faithful of other religions, too. There are people who are avowed Satanists who would say they follow Satan.

I'd be on Satan's side if they provided health insurance. ;)

[_charity]

Those who they are on God's side include faithful LDS. I think probably many other faithful of other religions, too. There are people who are avowed Satanists who would say they follow Satan.

I'd be on Satan's side if they provided health insurance. ;)

That's borderline mocking. But at least you didn't say fire insurance.

[_Moniker]

My entire post wasn't about you. I should have been clearer about that.

No need. I didn't assume that it was all about me.

I invoked your name because when you equated your faith with a person it was really an "aha" moment for me. The rest of my comments carried from there -- yet, they were not specific to you. I think there are some that absolutely take everything as a personal affront against LDS. I was dismayed when I was on MAD that I would have to repeatedly state my purpose for being there and assure people that I cared not what beliefs they subscribed to and I was there to learn more. Yet, some still insisted on treating all questions (of a sincere, non-judgmental nature) as if I was somehow attacking them. It was frustrating and more than slightly disappointing.

I have had a long history at MA&D, and have yet to come across anyone matching the description you just gave. Sure, there are certain participants there that tend to take things more personally than others. But, even they are not offended by some of the more diplomatic disagreements.

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

I was pretty certain I did understand that! Yet, I think there is suspicion. For instance the first thread I participated on MAD was discussing bigots in the South that are Baptists. I was surprised at the sentiments and popped in to explain that I know some wonderful neighbors that did not fit that stereotype -- there were people in that thread that disagreed with me. I assured them that not everyone in the "outside" hated them and that what I'd heard often was PRAISE for LDS (in the South) for their charitable works and ESPECIALLY their political stances. The call to label Huckabee voters as bigots was likewise seen just recently by LDS -- there are legitimate reasons why people vote for candidates and it does not necessarily deal with religion -- it's an ingrained suspicion I see (us. vs. them) that is evidenced at times.

While I appreciate you sharing this anecdotal experience with me, it was of no help in enabling me to determine whether you do understand why some discussions are taken personally, and why some aren't. Could you directly address that issue? Please? ;-)

Speaking of personal affronts in which you participated -- I was surprised that you saw me stating that LDS have an emphasis on appearance and I prefer other Churches that do not have this emphasis, as somehow me being negative in nature. There are Catholic Churches where I live that are the same way, there are some Churches in the more affluent areas where I live that are very appearance oriented. Yet, as this was about LDS I spoke to what I saw and how I preferred other places. I'm dismayed that all my statements seem to require some sort of disclaimer. It wasn't to degrade, ridicule, or mock those that hold this view and yet it was seen by you as a negative thing. I think that (with just using a few examples) sort of illustrates what I mean when I say "all discussions are taken as a personal affront". It's frustrating when I don't mean them to be that way and others take them as such.

I can appreciate that. However, I didn't take that discussion as a personal affront. I didn't take it personally at all. I simply viewed it as "gossipy" and "stereotyping"--though later admitting that "gossip" may not have been the best choice of words. My comments weren't engendered because of personal affront (since there was none), but in hopes of encouraging constructive discourse.

So, you were mistaken in your perceptions about me, which reasonably raises some question about the accuracy of you perceptions of so-called "zealots" at MA&D.

And when I say "all discussions are taken as a personal affront" I mean only certain posters -- those would be the zealots I speak of.

I would caution against making these kinds of sweeping statements, even when adding the clarification.

I understand the threads where there is CLEAR mocking and smears that this is offensive. Truth be told it is offensive to me! I think that perhaps these posters and the rabid nature really gets those on the other side (whichever side that may be) into a defensive stance and perhaps start to get jumpy.

I agree.

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.

Agreed! I took a few things personally over the last few weeks and did have to step back and consider why I was reacting in the manner I was. There were no beliefs challenged though -- more personal issues. Yet, I think anytime you react in an emotional manner it's best to evaluate why that is so.

That is wise--even though after stepping back, one may feel the emotions justified.

However, just to be clear, I wasn't reacting in an emotional manner to your "appearance" comments.

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 include me among the "zealots" who are "usually rabid and difficult to discuss anything with in a sensible manner."

Certainly not. I separated by a paragraph and I do not see you as a zealot. I've been called of Satan by some and had my family insulted by others -- those would fall into the "rabid" category for me.

I am pleased to learn that you don't consider me a "zealot", though I am sadden to learn of the name-calling and insults directed towards you and your family. Such is unwarranted and toxic, though I am not sure it serves you or anyone else well to name-call ('zealots") and insult ("rabid") them in return . ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can't handle the quotes anymore, so I'm just going to go point by point:

Wade, about MAD -- I posted questions about sealing policies. This dealt with my family and I was interested in it. I was attacked, viciously, had threads closed, and my husband called an ugly name by a poster. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it does not occur.

Wade, the anecdote about voters and southern bigots was that when I offered alternate views I was looked at suspiciously and actually felt as though my sentiments were labeled as wrong. Trying to show how those outside LDS do not all hate LDS was often seen as defending bigots. I can't be more specific without going over there and copy and pasting. These issues included discussions where I tried to illuminate people that believed others hated them -- I attempted to ask them to consider that they weren't hated and I was thrown in with protecting the "haters".

MAD also had a post started by a Mod that called for one of the LDS posters on that site to be treated like a child and encouraged everyone on the site to come in and call him names. It's obvious bad behavior occurs on both sides. And I'm not elevating myself to discuss this matters to act like I'm not a vindictive, angry person at times -- I do get hot and do things I wish I didn't. I think that when we can understand that we all act poorly at times (ON BOTH SIDES) that it makes it easier to forgive others if they seem remorseful.

I think zealot is appropriate for someone that says I'm of Satan. Says I'm "just screwed up all to hell" and need to get the holy ghost when I'm talking about horse bones and the Book of Mormon. Those that question whether I have any morals because I'm not a believer, question whether I have any meaning to my life (tell me I don't) and say I have no basis for charity or good deeds because I'm not a believer would likewise fall under a zealot for me. They are so ingrained in their world outlook that they absolutely see me as EVIL.

I call people rabid that act in that manner. I don't care if you think it's inappropriate -- I do it. What would you prefer? A big ole meanie? A naughty boi? A grumpy wumpy? ;)

If it makes any difference whatsoever; I've been more offended by ex-Mos and find that some of them are worst than anything that MAD ever did or could do to me personally.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Runtu,

Doesn't the location of Eden in Missouri sort of require a global flood?

-Chris

I can't imagine how. Some have speculated that the flood is what carried Noah and his family from Missouri to Ararat, but it's certainly not in the canon.

Plenty of things are in the canon that don't make sense. The Garden of Eden being in Missouri, for one. The fact that Adam got all his patriarchal homies together at Adam-ondi-Ahman suggests that they stayed in Missouri for quite some time. At some point they had to get to the Middle East, and if one is already committed to believing mythology as unlikely as Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Tower of Babel, I don't see why one would stop short of believing in the flood. Especially since it helps resolve other questions raised by the Mormon canon.

[_JAK]

I think it is very clearly an us vs them. God is on one side, Satan is on the other and the war is about the souls of men. I think there are those who KNOW they are God's side, and those who KNOW they are on Satan's side and an awful lot of people in the middle who don't even know there is a war much less which side they are on.

It’s a puzzling comment, Charity.

Definitions and some understanding of terms might be useful.

With the terms in your comment here, you’re really talking about some one’s or some group’s perception of what’s good and what is not good.

Over time, our perceptions of what is good change. Perceptions, over time and with different generations do not remain the same on very many issues.

Absent any credible evidence for either a God entity or a Satan entity, claims of such should be disregarded. They are claims. And different groups and/or individuals make different claims.

Insisting that one’s claims are right makes for zero tolerance of views which are at variance with one’s own. It also is fertile ground for enormous hostility.

JAK

[_JAK]

Plenty of things are in the canon that don't make sense. The Garden of Eden being in Missouri, for one. The fact that Adam got all his patriarchal homies together at Adam-ondi-Ahman suggests that they stayed in Missouri for quite some time. At some point they had to get to the Middle East, and if one is already committed to believing mythology as unlikely as Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Tower of Babel, I don't see why one would stop short of believing in the flood. Especially since it helps resolve other questions raised by the Mormon canon.

Well, CK,

If various assertions don’t make sense and if available evidence demonstrates that those assertions are unreasoned, such assertions should be discounted.

JAK

[_beastie]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but this is the type of behavior that, in my opinion, is part of the problem.

Charity stated:

If runtu's "agree to disagree" were without insults and mocking, I could live with that. But too often, the disagreement with LDS theology, history and leaders is couched in the most defaming terms possible.

So far, so good. But then she can't stop there:

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

Are you KIDDING me??? You complain about "defaming terms" and then proceed to share a scripture that states those who are against the LDS church are "WHORES OF THE EARTH"?

Do you imagine that just because your statement is couched in RELIGION that it is not defaming, insulting, and, frankly, obscene? Yes, you believe it's true, and it's your right to believe it's true, but it's not your right to throw these statements around while pretending that it's only the OTHER side doing the defaming.

[_beastie]

I have to add one more quick point before bed. In the past, when exmormons have tried to explain the impact of leaving the LDS church to believers, we've sometimes referred to the fact that the church is a culture, a worldview, an entire way of being, not just a "religion", and to lose that is traumatic and requires "recovery". In response, some believers predictably protest that this isn't so, it's not a culture the way judaism is a culture, and leaving Mormonism shouldn't be so traumatic as to require "recovery" or grief. Yet, to explain their own sensitivity, they're quick to explain that Mormonism is much, much more than just a religion.

I've stated before I think that there are people whose identities become completely enmeshed with the LDS church, and they are True Believers in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word. Losing that identity is so threatening to the "core" of self that challenges to that faith literally cannot be recognized.

Time, once again, for my favorite Hoffer quote:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

[_Ray A]

Absent any credible evidence for either a God entity or a Satan entity, claims of such should be disregarded. They are claims. And different groups and/or individuals make different claims.

Why "disregarded"? Even someone like Bertrand Russell said he was agnostic. Wouldn't "disregarding" something be tantamount to saying it does not, and cannot exist? Isn't it a bit presumptions for humans, a speck in the universe really, to disregard anything they can't observe? Who is to say that little green men don't live at the opposite end of the Milky Way galaxy? How can we know this isn't so?

[Guest]

Absent any credible evidence for either a God entity or a Satan entity, claims of such should be disregarded. They are claims. And different groups and/or individuals make different claims.

Why "disregarded"? Even someone like Bertrand Russell said he was agnostic. Wouldn't "disregarding" something be tantamount to saying it does not, and cannot exist? Isn't it a bit presumptions for humans, a speck in the universe really, to disregard anything they can't observe? Who is to say that little green men don't live at the opposite end of the Milky Way galaxy? How can we know this isn't so?

Ray A,

In order for claims to have credibility they require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your comment does not reflect what I stated. Here, I have added dimension to the comment.

Anyone can make a claim. For that claim to have credibility, it requires evidence which is transparent, open to examination, and open to skeptical review.

For example, your computer works and the Internet works as a result of applied information and knowledge which meets all three of the criteria mentioned here.

If someone wishes to claim “little green men…” it’s incumbent upon them to provide evidence for that claim. Absent evidence for “little green men,” we should disregard the claim. The burden of proof does not lie with the negative, as your comment implies.

JAK