D&C 127:2

[malkie]

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

Then critics should likewise not feel guilty about sharing their beliefs with others.

You really "don't think that would happen" that members would "ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others"? I think you need to get out more.

When Joseph said that "... the Personage who addressed me said that all [the other church's] creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;" this should not be seen as criticising the beliefs of others? It seems to me that it doesn't even allow for the possibility that others' beliefs were mistaken - "those professors were all corrupt" seems to rule that out.

Likewise, when Elder McConkie spoke about the Catholic church:

Mormon Doctrine sometimes included offensive content. Popular examples include Elder McConkie’s identification of the Roman Catholic Church as the church of the devil (or the “great and abominable church” from the Book of Mormon), ...

https://www.fromthedesk.org/bruce-r-mcconkie/

I suppose that, with special pleading once again, you can claim (without proof, I might add) that these statements came from Mormon god, and not from Smith or McConkie.

I'll also note that, since you selected one sentence of mine to quote, out of several paragraphs, one might assume that you are not offering any defense of your strawman tactic that I mentioned.

[Marcus]

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

Then critics should likewise not feel guilty about sharing their beliefs with others.

You really "don't think that would happen" that members would "ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others"? I think you need to get out more...

Seriously. Nelson's g.c. talk about how very good people who followed Christ would be excluded from the highest rewards in Mormon heaven, simply because they didn't follow the Mormon way, was very, very clear. He was definitely "criticizing the beliefs of others."

Nelson, from the lds church's strongest vantage point, preached that believing, living a good life, following Jesus, etc. is NOT enough. How more clearly can beliefs be criticized??

[Marcus]

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...

Lol. The mental gymnast wants to speak about logic??? Methinks he doth project too much....

[MG 2.0]

You really "don't think that would happen" that members would "ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others"? I think you need to get out more.

I'm literally speaking of 'members of the church', that is, the run of the mill member or missionary. I can't imagine that the 'tactic' of dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs are going to bring them closer to the gospel of Christ. I've previously said that conversion is an individual matter between a person and their God.

The decision to de-convert is also a personal decision that one makes.

malkie, I'm not criticizing your de-conversion. For you, it was apparently the 'right choice'. We all do the best we can with the information and life experience and natural inclinations that make us who we are. That's true for believers and unbelievers.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

You really "don't think that would happen" that members would "ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others"? I think you need to get out more.

I'm literally speaking of 'members of the church', that is, the run of the mill member or missionary. I can't imagine that the 'tactic' of dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs are going to bring them closer to the gospel of Christ. I've previously said that conversion is an individual matter between a person and their God.

The decision to de-convert is also a personal decision that one makes.

malkie, I'm not criticizing your de-conversion. For you, it was apparently the 'right choice'. We all do the best we can with the information and life experience and natural inclinations that make us who we are. That's true for believers and unbelievers.

Regards,
MG

Firstly, my comments had absolutely nothing to do with me, or my "de-conversion'. I found that statement quite astounding, and really don't know what made you jump to that incorrect conclusion. If that assumption underlies anything else you said, then perhaps you want to reconsider.
I'm also literally speaking of 'members of the church', that is, the run of the mill member or missionary.

You seem to be shifting the goalposts here.

In this current comment that I'm quoting you refer to: "dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs". Earlier you said: "if [members] were to ever sit down with their friends and/or contacts and criticize the beliefs of others, ...". Nothing at all about criticising the beliefs of their friends and/or contacts.

So could you please clarify who you are talking about - who exactly is doing the criticising, and who is the object of the criticism, because to me, the plain reading of these two statements is quite different.

Did my quoting of Joseph Smith and Bruce McConkie not give you a clue that I was responding to your previous comment about members "criticiz[ing] the beliefs of others", and not to your yet-to-be-made comment about "dissing or criticizing a friend's beliefs"?

[Res Ipsa]

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

Most of what you believe is “simple fact” when it comes to materialists is pretty wrong. First off, “worthiness” isn’t really a thing. Second, people use all kinds of methods to help them sort out their stances toward life, the universe, and everything. Some think and reflect. Some meditate. Some discuss. Some pray. Sure, I think most materialists would agree that prayer is an unreliable way to measure the mass of electron. And I think most would agree that whichever process one uses to figure stuff out, the answer comes from within.

[I Have Questions]

I don't see you making an argument for anything except to accept the word(s) of those that you happen to agree with.

Why would someone make an argument to accept word(s) they didn’t agree with? MG, can you give the class an example of when you have made an argument on behalf of words that you didn’t agree with?

[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.

Why would someone make an argument to accept word(s) they didn’t agree with? MG, can you give the class an example of when you have made an argument on behalf of words that you didn’t agree with?

It seems like there was an expectation or an assumption of an argument against—maybe because I do value prayer. But that’s not the same thing as me “only accepting the words I agree with.” It just means the argument made sense on its own terms, so I didn’t refute it.

If I should disagree with it, then I’d be interested in hearing the reasons why. Otherwise it’s some sort of fault for not arguing against something that, to me, wasn’t wrong in the first place.

And this ties into the broader issue: appealing to prayer as a truth-test doesn’t resolve disagreements, because the expected answer is subjective—a feeling interpreted through prior belief, or a different response being framed as “incorrect” or “incomplete.”

Different people pray, get different feelings, and reach opposite conclusions. So relying on that method doesn’t tell us which argument is valid; it only tells us what someone’s internal experience was.

[I Have Questions]

Why would someone make an argument to accept word(s) they didn’t agree with? MG, can you give the class an example of when you have made an argument on behalf of words that you didn’t agree with?

It seems like there was an expectation or an assumption of an argument against—maybe because I do value prayer. But that’s not the same thing as me “only accepting the words I agree with.” It just means the argument made sense on its own terms, so I didn’t refute it.

If I should disagree with it, then I’d be interested in hearing the reasons why. Otherwise it’s some sort of fault for not arguing against something that, to me, wasn’t wrong in the first place.

And this ties into the broader issue: appealing to prayer as a truth-test doesn’t resolve disagreements, because the expected answer is subjective—a feeling interpreted through prior belief, or a different response being framed as “incorrect” or “incomplete.”

Different people pray, get different feelings, and reach opposite conclusions. So relying on that method doesn’t tell us which argument is valid; it only tells us what someone’s internal experience was.

Yes. All of that. And also, what is the "feeling" that indicates the response is from God, as opposed to a "feeling" that's been self generated? What are the key, observable, repeatable, differences that one can identify between the two sensations? You won't get a clear answer on that one. Because nobody can articulate a reasonable, repeatable, consistent differentiation between them. Not even Church Leaders.

The best the Brethren can offer is to say that if the sensation feels like a confirmation of something they have said, then it’s from God. If it disagrees with them, then it isn’t. The inherent danger in such statements is obvious.

[malkie]

It seems like there was an expectation or an assumption of an argument against—maybe because I do value prayer. But that’s not the same thing as me “only accepting the words I agree with.” It just means the argument made sense on its own terms, so I didn’t refute it.

If I should disagree with it, then I’d be interested in hearing the reasons why. Otherwise it’s some sort of fault for not arguing against something that, to me, wasn’t wrong in the first place.

And this ties into the broader issue: appealing to prayer as a truth-test doesn’t resolve disagreements, because the expected answer is subjective—a feeling interpreted through prior belief, or a different response being framed as “incorrect” or “incomplete.”

Different people pray, get different feelings, and reach opposite conclusions. So relying on that method doesn’t tell us which argument is valid; it only tells us what someone’s internal experience was.

Yes. All of that. And also, what is the "feeling" that indicates the response is from God, as opposed to a "feeling" that's been self generated? What are the key, observable, repeatable, differences that one can identify between the two sensations? You won't get a clear answer on that one. Because nobody can articulate a reasonable, repeatable, consistent differentiation between them. Not even Church Leaders.

The best the Brethren can offer is to say that if the sensation feels like a confirmation of something they have said, then it’s from God. If it disagrees with them, then it isn’t. The inherent danger in such statements is obvious.

Also: If it disagrees with them, then you are not doing "it" properly.
Also: If it disagrees with them, then keep doing "it" until it does agree.