Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

[_MsJack]

Are reasonable minds still allowed to disagree Jack, or are you growing more strident and dogmatic in your criticisms of my faith?

I think reasonable minds should acknowledge that there are good arguments out there against all faiths (mine included) and we can't always control how our children will react to hearing them, even if they give a fair hearing to the apologetic side of the issues.

And yes, I think my missionaries were overzealous. But I don't have much of a barometer for judging how typical my experience with them was.

Anyways, posts are happening on this thread way too fast for me and I have to run. It was nice to chat with you again, ttribe.

[_beastie]

And I don't get the impression from Scott's post that he is concerned with being able to defend the Church against any of these charges, true or not.

If he weren't concerned, he wouldn't be talking about millstones. He's concerned. And he ought to be.

[_Ray A]

Do they not speak English in Australia now or something? I specifically said I am not interested in how you parent...and why you feel compelled to comment on Scott's parenting is beyond me.

Why do you feel compelled to comment on my commenting about Scott's parenting? Why is any of us posting on the Internet? Why did Scott start this thread, knowing it was likely to receive comment here? I'm afraid I can't arrange any protection orders here. Board rules.

6. "Cross-posting" from other message boards is allowed. Feel free.

This, also, isn't primarily about Scott's parenting. Check the title of his thread: "An insidious Internet threat and it's not pornography."

[_badseed]

Since I've never used that one, I'm not sure why I have to defend it.

You don't> I was just wondering out loud about Scott's comments.

How would they/we go about "shut[ting] down" such views?

They/you obviously can't— any more than exmos are going to stop the missionary program. Scott's comments (and those of other LDS) make me think though that if they could they would. An example is the labeling of critical sites as hate sites in order to control/curb information flow.

How is it that you are inferring levels of control not supported evidence?

Honestly, I'm not sure I follow. Are suggesting that parents only allow their children to view information that they (parents) find supported by evidence?

I don't think it's "critics" per se that he's referring to.

I see myself as a critic. Nearly every LDS I know sees what I espouse as anti-Mormonism. Truth is we use different terms for the same thing.

Are you suggesting that he isn't?

Ya, I s'pose I was— based on what the OP and I shouldn't have. Just because he has issues with what he considers less-than-faithful LDS information doesn't mean he doesn't rant on similarly about drugs and porn. Being an apologist though I wonder if this is perhaps even more likely to hit a nerve.

[_ttribe]

And I don't get the impression from Scott's post that he is concerned with being able to defend the Church against any of these charges, true or not.

If he weren't concerned, he wouldn't be talking about millstones. He's concerned. And he ought to be.

Meh...take it up with Scott...I believe you still have access to MADB.

[_ttribe]

They/you obviously can't— any more than exmos are going to stop the missionary program. Scott's comments (and those of other LDS) make me think though that if they could they would. An example is the labeling of critical sites as hate sites in order to control/curb information flow.

Clearly, there are some sites out there that are appropriately labeled as "hate" sites...but it doesn't follow that all critical sites should/are labeled as such.

Honestly, I'm not sure I follow. Are suggesting that parents only allow their children to view information that they (parents) find supported by evidence?

No. I was suggesting that your statement about the level of control Scott, or I, exert over our children is not necessarily supported by the available evidence. Perhaps I could have worded that response a little more clearly.

I see myself as a critic. Nearly every LDS I know sees what I espouse as anti-Mormonism. Truth is we use different terms for the same thing.

I differentiate between the critic and the professional anti who desires the wholesale destruction of the Church.

Ya, I s'pose I was— based on what the OP and I shouldn't have. Just because he has issues with what he considers less-than-faithful LDS information doesn't mean he doesn't rant on similarly about drugs and porn. Being an apologist though I wonder if this is perhaps even more likely to hit a nerve.

Well, if MADB were a "Just Say No to Drugs" site and he made the post that he did, I might agree with you. Given the topical nature of MADB, I suspect it would be erroneous to infer a gradation of parental concerns which cannot be represented by one thread.

[_beastie]

Meh...take it up with Scott...I believe you still have access to MADB.

LOL. No thanks, I simply don't care enough to deal with MAD on the issue. I think his statement is pretty self-evident. He thinks the purveyors of "anti-mormon" lies ought to have a millstone around their necks. Why? Clearly because of the damage they do. So they do damage. That's concern.

However, if Scott is too oblivious of reality to be concerned, I don't care enough to argue with him about it. Reality is that there is plenty to be concerned about regarding the increasing access to the blemished LDS history, and the fact that the inoculation campaign has begun in seriousness testifies to that fact. They're inoculating because they have to. They work very hard to come up with answers to questions like "why did Joseph Smith marry already married women", but I think even the most ardent apologist will admit that these answers will only satisfy a certain percentage of troubled believers. I'd bet they'd count themselves lucky if they "save" fifty percent. And I see no reason to doubt that some of the fifty percent it won't work with will be children of ardent believers.

[_badseed]

How heavy is that broad brush you're painting with? Cuz it seems awfully large.

It's pretty big on this one but I think I'm on pretty ground solid here.

From my experience, faithful LDS parents view the faithfulness of their children at a level of such importance that OFTEN when a child strays from the faith the parent although forced to live with it, never accepts it. What I mean by this is that the parent OFTEN does not respect the child's (even an adult child) ability or right to choose their own life's path. They will pray and hope and OFTEN continue to persuade the child to reconsider and return the one true way. Sure, I can't say what all Mormons do but considering the Church's teachings, conference talks, my own experience, the experience of friends and people online etc.— I think there's some thing to this.

Do you disagree? Where am I wrong here?

[_ttribe]

How heavy is that broad brush you're painting with? Cuz it seems awfully large.

It's pretty big on this one but I think I'm on pretty ground solid here.

From my experience, faithful LDS parents view the faithfulness of their children at a level of such importance that OFTEN when a child strays from the faith the parent although forced to live with it, never accepts it. What I mean by this is that the parent OFTEN does not respect the child's (even an adult child) ability or right to choose their own life's path. They will pray and hope and OFTEN continue to persuade the child to reconsider and return the one true way. Sure, I can't say what all Mormons do but considering the Church's teachings, conference talks, my own experience, the experience of friends and people online etc.— I think there's some thing to this.

Do you disagree? Where am I wrong here?

Perhaps I am over-inferring the degree to which you are asserting this is unique to LDS culture. I believe the same could be said for many Catholic or Islamic families, for example. Or, even in cultural matters where a traditional Arab family objects to the "westernizing" of their child. In short, I believe the phenomenon you are highlighting has less to do with the Church and more to do with human psychology and sociological patterns.

[_truth dancer]

Hi tt, you wrote,

You don't think it's just a tad over the line to comment on your hopes that Scott's son rejects the teachings of his parents? What a class act you are.

Then,

Hmmmm... when I was a child the missionaries convinced me that the teachings of my father were incorrect, he being agnostic and all. I'm pretty sure they were pleased when I got baptized.

~td~

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure they got the express permission of your parents to both teach you and baptize you. I'm also pretty sure that had they circumvented such parental permission, they wouldn't have been quite so "pleased" with themselves.

You missed the point...

Are the missionaries a "class act" because they hoped I would leave the teachings of my father and join their church?

~td~