D&C 127:2

[Limnor]

But now, in addition, it is!

Alright guys, what is the point...from whomever...that I haven't already addressed? Help me out.

Regards
MG

I’ll let sock explain if he wants to (though if you have to explain the joke it loses some of its effect).

My impression, though, was that sock left out the word “prayer” on purpose—that was the satire. He was describing the ex-Mo process from a naturalistic point of view: read, think, compare, evaluate—the same words you used.

When you highlighted “prayer” as missing, you didn’t expose a problem in his logic so much as your own assumption: the idea that inquiry must include prayer, so leaving it out felt like an error to you and it ended up making his point.

Marcus already unpacked this earlier in more detail.

[Marcus]

For sockpuppet...

Believe it or not, I think Wardrobes...as I've mentioned somewhere at some time...can take people to different places on their magical journeys. That being said, I also think that Wardrobes can lead people to Narnia when they are ready and willing. But that doesn't discount or negate the journeys of millions and millions of people across the planet who are seekers and trying to develop a connection/relationship outside of Narnia with Aslan.

Can people learn, grow, and discover without magical Wardrobes? Sure. But I do think that magical Wardrobes that take one straight to Aslan in Narnia open up possibilities that can be had in no other way as Aslan reveals His Lion-self in one form/fashion or another to those that appreciate C.S. Lewis.

Enter into a Wardrobe and exit out the back into a magical, snow-laden forest and all that...

It's bigger on the Inside*,
Marcus

*especially during the 2011 Dr. Who Christmas show, The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe.

[MG 2.0]

Alright guys, what is the point...from whomever...that I haven't already addressed? Help me out.

Regards
MG

I’ll let sock explain if he wants to (though if you have to explain the joke it loses some of its effect).

I think I saw what he did. He wants me to put him on ignore, which I will do him the courtesy.

My impression, though, was that sock left out the word “prayer” on purpose—that was the satire.

I know he did it on purpose. Later he rejected prayer as being an avenue to learning. Satire? Maybe. If so, it was in poor taste.

He was describing the ex-Mo process from a naturalistic point of view: read, think, compare, evaluate—the same words you used.

Heavens to Betsy, do you think I didn't see that?

When you highlighted “prayer” as missing, you didn’t expose a problem in his logic so much as your own assumption: the idea that inquiry must include prayer, so leaving it out felt like an error to you and it ended up making his point.

Read what I said carefully in that post and others.

Marcus already unpacked this earlier in more detail.

I don't read what Marcus has to say unless it is contained inside another post. Even then I mostly ignore her. Her logic has never impressed me as being even sided. She cherry picks and creates straw men, etc.

I don't see you making an argument for anything except to accept the word(s) of those that you happen to agree with. We are now approaching the "he said, she said" section of the thread. I will likely bow out at this point unless there is something that is pertinent to the conversation without delving/falling into innuendo and black balling.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

In any case, how relevant is it whether or not critics feel guilt (presumably about criticising Mormon beliefs)?

Should Mormons feel guilt about criticising the beliefs of others? Should missionaries feel guilt about trying to lead people away from their previous religion, or non-religion?

I can only see special pleading as distinguishing between the two sides in this respect - it's OK for Mormons because they have the truth.

I don't know that I would say that missionaries sit down and "criticize" the beliefs of others. What they do is teach the gospel and let others recognize...or not...the truth, as they (the missionaries) see it, as it is taught/shared with them.

Missionaries are not "leading people away" from their previously held religious beliefs. Converts become converted to the fullness of the Gospel through their own search for truth as they listen, study, pray, and do their own thinking.

You make it sound as though folks that are baptized into the LDS Church are cattle being prodded into the chute.

You might give them some credit.

Why would missionaries feel guilty for sharing their 'truth'?

Regards,
MG

You may note that at no point did I say that missionaries should/would feel guilty for sharing their 'truth'. It was a question as a counterpoint to your suggestion for critics to feel guilty about sharing the 'truth' about Mormonism. Wait till critics start going throughout the world, two by two, knocking on the doors of converts to tell them about their (the critics') experiences with Mormonism.

Perhaps I'm not up to date on missionary methods, but even if you would deny that "missionaries sit down and criticize the beliefs of others", I've never seen them as passive in presenting the Mormon version of the 'truth'. Leading people towards one set of beliefs, such as Mormonism, inevitably leads them away from some others. In any case, I didn't restrict my comments about criticising the beliefs of others to missionaries - I asked if Mormons should feel guilt about criticising the beliefs of others.

I also think that you greatly exaggerate what I'm saying with your "cattle being prodded into the chute" statement. I suppose I cannot help it if in your mind you transform "trying to lead people" into "folks that are baptized into the LDS Church are cattle being prodded into the chute", but I would have hoped that you might avoid suggesting that I "make it sound as though" the two are the same. So please don't try to put words in my mouth, OK? - you don't score any rhetorical points with such a crudely constructed strawman.

[Limnor]

I don't see you making an argument for anything except to accept the word(s) of those that you happen to agree with. We are now approaching the "he said, she said" section of the thread. I will likely bow out at this point unless there is something that is pertinent to the conversation without delving/falling into innuendo and black balling.

Regards,
MG

No I wasn’t making an argument, you’re right. I was making an observation that you read Sock’s naturalistic description as if it were supposed to include prayer. That reaction itself proved the assumption. Nothing more complicated than that.

If you want to bow out, that’s fine—but this isn’t innuendo. It’s just noticing the frameplonet you’re using.

[MG 2.0]

I asked if Mormons should feel guilt about criticising the beliefs of others.

If it's a simple question here, then no, members of the church should not feel guilty about sharing their beliefs with others. And if they were to ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others, that would be wrong.

But I don't think that would happen. For one thing, the founding prophet would not be on board with doing that. I don't think the current prophet would be on board either.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I don't see you making an argument for anything except to accept the word(s) of those that you happen to agree with. We are now approaching the "he said, she said" section of the thread. I will likely bow out at this point unless there is something that is pertinent to the conversation without delving/falling into innuendo and black balling.

Regards,
MG

No I wasn’t making an argument, you’re right. I was making an observation that you read Sock’s naturalistic description as if it were supposed to include prayer. That reaction itself proved the assumption. Nothing more complicated than that.

If you want to bow out, that’s fine—but this isn’t innuendo. It’s just noticing the frameplonet you’re using.

[MG 2.0]

I don't see you making an argument for anything except to accept the word(s) of those that you happen to agree with. We are now approaching the "he said, she said" section of the thread. I will likely bow out at this point unless there is something that is pertinent to the conversation without delving/falling into innuendo and black balling.

Regards,
MG

No I wasn’t making an argument, you’re right. I was making an observation that you read Sock’s naturalistic description as if it were supposed to include prayer. That reaction itself proved the assumption. Nothing more complicated than that.

If you want to bow out, that’s fine—but this isn’t innuendo. It’s just noticing the frameplonet you’re using.

Actually, that's not quite what I said. Explore the complete context.

I did think, however, that it might be important to point out that materialists, because of their worldview, look at prayer as being an unworthy/useless tool to finding truth. That's a simple fact, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Actually, that's not quite what I said. Explore the complete context.

I did think, however, that it might be important to point out that materialists, because of their worldview, look at prayer as being an unworthy/useless tool to finding truth. That's a simple fact, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

I won’t speak for materialists and their approaches. What I was highlighting is that you supplied the missing prayer step in sock’s list because—within your frame—it feels essential. That’s all. It does feel essential to you, doesn’t it?

So I wasn’t arguing the merits of prayer or critiquing anyone’s worldview—on either side—I was just noticing how the assumption surfaced in your reaction.

If you think the broader context changes that, I’m open to hearing it—just show me what you think I missed.

[MG 2.0]

Actually, that's not quite what I said. Explore the complete context.

I did think, however, that it might be important to point out that materialists, because of their worldview, look at prayer as being an unworthy/useless tool to finding truth. That's a simple fact, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

I won’t speak for materialists and their approaches. What I was highlighting is that you supplied the missing prayer step in sock’s list because—within your frame—it feels essential. That’s all. It does feel essential to you, doesn’t it?

So I wasn’t arguing the merits of prayer or critiquing anyone’s worldview—on either side—I was just noticing how the assumption surfaced in your reaction.

If you think the broader context changes that, I’m open to hearing it—just show me what you think I missed.

I'm willing to leave it on the table at this point.

Regards,
MG