How about a second Religion category?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The problem, Pelagius, is that in my experience these conversations never occur in person, much less in a gospel doctrine class. Therefore "online" is the only venue available to many.

This is an interesting point. These types of discussions require a certain amount of trust between the participants which is difficult to obtain in person. ON-line, we don't know or see the other person, pretend to have anonymity and so feel free to spout off. This does allow the conversation to take place, but I also wonder about the real quality of it, as it is delivered wholly without context. The trust you might gain in person follows from getting to know the other person, which usually includes knowing their circumstances and background thus allowing you to place their comments in a specific context. I think this is what Pelagius is talking about (at least in part). I think I share his concern about the effect of these discussions, yet I enjoy them too much to protest or to stop participating. Maybe we need early morning Gospel Doctrine class taught by Pelagius or others?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The problem, Pelagius, is that in my experience these conversations never occur in person, much less in a gospel doctrine class. Therefore "online" is the only venue available to many.

As Creekster indicated, you make a good point. I really wasn't trying to disparage online fora in general or cougarguard in particular. I think you are probably right that online fora such as cougarguard allow many members to explore the gospel in ways that would be difficult to do in other settings. I think one of the real positive aspects of a forum like cougarguard is that it can give you a sense that your not alone in terms of your concerns or exploration. I think that is often quite valuable.

Creekster actually summarized my feelings pretty well. I enjoy online discussions of religion, but I do worry about unintended consequences of my participation.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

As Creekster indicated, you make a good point. I really wasn't trying to disparage online fora in general or cougarguard in particular. I think you are probably right that online fora such as cougarguard allow many members to explore the gospel in ways that would be difficult to do in other settings. I think one of the real positive aspects of a forum like cougarguard is that it can give you a sense that your not alone in terms of your concerns or exploration. I think that is often quite valuable.

Creekster actually summarized my feelings pretty well. I enjoy online discussions of religion, but I do worry about unintended consequences of my participation.

It is good that persons consider unintended consequences of any action. I see no problem in that. OTH, it appears most of us, if not all, are adults most of the time. Thus, a vigorous debate is sometimes healthy for the soul.

We appreciate your insights.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The problem, Pelagius, is that in my experience these conversations never occur in person, much less in a gospel doctrine class. Therefore "online" is the only venue available to many.

Ding ding ding.

[SoCalCoug]

Reading through this thread, there seems to me to be contradiction in the position of Indy and Rocky regarding gospel scholarship.

They seem to be advocating limiting any gospel learning to the standard works and words of the prophets. Therefore, seeking knowledge from other sources would be inappropriate.

Yet, lets say one of them wants to learn more about statistics. I'm sure he would want to keep abreast of the current scholarship in the statistics arena, and would spend a lot of time reading whatever scholarly sources there may be for statistics.

If you wanted to be an expert in statistics, you certainly wouldn't want to be restricted to the basic texts you received in your first year of college on the subject.

However, you also wouldn't want to forget the very basics from that first textbook, because that might undermine your entire basis for understanding the more advanced literature.

It seems that Indy and Rocky would be in favor of in depth and broad study of such a banal subject as statistics, but not of the scriptures.

I've heard all of the counsel against getting caught up in the "trivialities" of the gospel, but I don't think that means to ignore them. If you have a strong understanding of the basics, and a strong spiritual conviction, I don't see anything wrong with expanding the scope of your gospel study.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Reading through this thread, there seems to me to be contradiction in the position of Indy and Rocky regarding gospel scholarship.

They seem to be advocating limiting any gospel learning to the standard works and words of the prophets. Therefore, seeking knowledge from other sources would be inappropriate.

Yet, lets say one of them wants to learn more about statistics. I'm sure he would want to keep abreast of the current scholarship in the statistics arena, and would spend a lot of time reading whatever scholarly sources there may be for statistics.

If you wanted to be an expert in statistics, you certainly wouldn't want to be restricted to the basic texts you received in your first year of college on the subject.

However, you also wouldn't want to forget the very basics from that first textbook, because that might undermine your entire basis for understanding the more advanced literature.

It seems that Indy and Rocky would be in favor of in depth and broad study of such a banal subject as statistics, but not of the scriptures.

I've heard all of the counsel against getting caught up in the "trivialities" of the gospel, but I don't think that means to ignore them. If you have a strong understanding of the basics, and a strong spiritual conviction, I don't see anything wrong with expanding the scope of your gospel study.

lol...well I guess this debate was over til you decided to resurrect it after a day or two....when have you ever seen me get caught up in statistics save a small debate with MPFunk about Curtis Brown stacking up against Yewt running backs of the past?

You also assumed a lot, but that's fine by me. Like I've said like a broken record, I'm not interested in voicing my opinion just so people like me. I make no more apologies anymore for my approach. You'll get over it either way I'm sure.