Buffalo wrote: Hmm, I don't see apologists or General Authorities as having much in common with typical Mormons. Apologists are essentially Mormon heretics trying to save Mormonism, and GAs are kind of spoiled royalty.
I think asbestosman means that the psychology affecting them is the same. I tend to agree. The difference is that the apologist knows more about the problems or criticisms of LDS truth claims. When an average member starts to investigate these problems they will tend to change belief, lose some beliefs, or become apologists. The real difference when finding out about this information is where we are in wanting to know the truth, or wanting to believe our beliefs to be true.
Buffalo wrote: Hmm, I don't see apologists or General Authorities as having much in common with typical Mormons. Apologists are essentially Mormon heretics trying to save Mormonism, and GAs are kind of spoiled royalty.
I think asbestosman means that the psychology affecting them is the same. I tend to agree. The difference is that the apologist knows more about the problems or criticisms of LDS truth claims. When an average member starts to investigate these problems they will tend to change belief, lose some beliefs, or become apologists. The real difference when finding out about this information is where we are in wanting to know the truth, or wanting to believe our beliefs to be true.
I think the harshest criticism of individual members have little to do with psychological issues. Usually it's over a specific comment or action. IMHO.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I think you and stem may be interpreting their results as being more like absolutes.
Certainly not the case for me. Afterall all I've done is expressed how some of hte statements made here resonate with me when I think of the trend of posting accomplished here. Absolutely not interpreted as absolute.
I gots to stay clear, it seems, lest my position be mistaken.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:I think the harshest criticism of individual members have little to do with psychological issues. Usually it's over a specific comment or action. IMHO.
pardon me...I'm just a little taken aback by the humble part (-:
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:I think the harshest criticism of individual members have little to do with psychological issues. Usually it's over a specific comment or action. IMHO.
pardon me...I'm just a little taken aback by the humble part (-:
Just assume that when I write IMHO it stand for "In My wHollyindisputable Opinion." ;)
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:Why be so sensitive? I think you are a great guy.
Sensitive? I ain't that sensitive at all. To be clear, I'm saying good for you.
Now, could you define what you mean by oppose the church? I tend to think I disagree with some of it's claims, but do not oppose the church.
I'm being rather vague and general by alluding to those who oppose the Church. I realize even those who disagree with the claims can see some redeemable qualities, but that doesn't mean they also can't be those who actively argue against many of the Church's claims.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: I'm being rather vague and general by alluding to those who oppose the Church. I realize even those who disagree with the claims can see some redeemable qualities, but that doesn't mean they also can't be those who actively argue against many of the Church's claims.
It's seems vague enough not to be able to determine who you mean is opposing the church. It could also include to much of a range of people who are active in church to those who want to see the church destroyed.
Excellent article. Thanks for that, abs-man. I've actually been thinking a lot about this kind of stuff lately, so your post is timely for me. I really appreciate you sharing this.
Wait, what am I saying?!? You're part of the other team. Die, out-grouper!!
But seriously, I remember when I was young priding myself on adapting to other people by changing my personality to suit theirs. It never occurred to me for a second that I could be hiding who I am.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: people vastly underestimate what's going on in their subconscious and the power it wields over our everyday behavior. We've got blind spots covering other blind spots.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Themis wrote:It's seems vague enough not to be able to determine who you mean is opposing the church. It could also include to much of a range of people who are active in church to those who want to see the church destroyed.
Well then my mistake.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
I read quite a bit about the function (or dysfunction) of the brain in the past. It is a bit depressing. I try to remember how noble human beings can be, too, when reading these things, else I get dispirited.
My conclusion is if a godbeing created human beings, it did a horrible job. It created us with so many mental quirks and flaws that it seems we're not wired to discover the "truth" of anything - much less a godbeing.
We can barely grasp the "truth" of the world around us and other human beings, much less some godbeing and what it supposedly says.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.