Lack of inoculation takes another

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Tooblue, perhaps you're just misunderstanding me. Whether you are thinking you are superior or not, your actions (i.e., on a message board, your words) can reasonably be interepreted that way.

I fully accept that it is reasonable for my actions to be interpreted that way -- that is why I apologize because that is not how they are meant. One might say, well then learn from that! I might say I am learning from it, and in order to continue to learn from it I need to continue to participate on the message board, because for me that is one of it's primary purposes.

In contrast, if it's reasonable for my actions to me interpreted 'that' way, it's reasonable for your actions to be interpreted 'that' way ... ergo the irony.

For example, your endless (and mindless) assertions of superiority against anyone who has dared disagree with you about: evolution, your donuthole "theory," your made-up Marxism, and so on. You align yourself with the angels and do not deign to say, "well, we don't agree, but then there are good people on many sides of this issue.

Your suggestion that my assertions are mindless is condescending and carelessly hurtful. I hope my assertions are endless, that would mean I am constantly questioning and therefore learning! My continued presence here contradicts the idea that I can't deign to say; "well, we don't agree, but then there are good people on many sides of this issue." If that were the case I would leave, or just read and never respond. (Not trying to think for you) but I believe you come here to be read and in part, to be contended with. As do I.

I've stated as much many times. Thinking you have the "right" of an issue is common and should not bring down the charge of an air of superiority. After all, aren't many striving to figure out what's right? Thinking that anyone who disagrees with you is evil is another matter.

I would suggest that your well stated above ideal be universally applied to all participants comments. In my experience it is not i.e. my "doughnut theory", made-up Marxism and so on. Furthermore, I often side with a Tex point of view precisely because he, or the idea he is espousing, is not permitted a place at the table with the above stated ideal. There are too many voices against. The tactic of many is to say that "this is our only outlet to contend with the many voices in favor of, so shut up." I will be a contrarian. I will embrace the absurd. I will speak up.

This is the difference between, for example, Republican Church members thinking that they're views are "right," and Republican Church members questioning the membership or moral fitness of a Mormon Democrat or Libertarian. The one accepts differences in judgment and opportunities for persuasion, the other says "thou fool" and "foot, I have no need of thee."

Having grown up in Utah I completely understand this dynamic. Because I choose to live outside the US, I see the dynamic more along the lines of American church members views are "right", especially when arguing the many issues that are opened up here. The arrogance is unfathomable. Rarely do the American posters here accept differences in judgement and opportunities for persuasion. The mere mention of how an issue affects members outside of the US is met with; "thou fool" and "foot, I have no need of thee ... [you are not American, or the non American POV is invalid ]"

So I'm telling you that I think you're behavior on CG is often misguided, but that I don't think that makes you evil or me morally superior.

Consider how many of your posts have a subtext of "thou fool." Consider the post I'm responding to. I think it's misguided.

You condescend to tell me I am misguided and therefore it is reasonable for your actions to be interpreted as coming from someone who considers himself morally superior.

So I am telling you I suggest you revisit and reconsider my posts applying the ideals you have outlined here. Please consider the subtext of your post -- consider what I'm responding to. Perhaps you will discover that I am not misguided.

[Archaea]

I don't know if anybody considers him or herself morally superior, well perhaps one person does (not the either of you), but it seems parties considers themselves more "right" in an argument and it comes across to the other as a form of haughtiness to each other. That's just an outsider's view.

Moral superiority seems to require more than talking each other down on an internet board. It seems IMHO to require action as well.

[MikeWaters]

I may need to split off these posts into another thread if they persist.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I may need to split off these posts into another thread if they persist.

In internet message board terminology the persistent posts you site might best be described as "hi-jacking the thread". Hi-jacking the tread can be a perfunctory or thoughtful act. Do as you like.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

First, there is not "immediate access to all truths." In many, many cases we do not have all the facts. Sometimes it's because they are being withheld by someone, and sometimes it's just because they simply don't exist. I see very little care exercised here about what we don't know.

Come on. You know what I meant.

Originally Posted by Tex

Second, for this discussion I eschew the terms "good" and "bad" truth in favor of "more important" and "less important." It's an important distinction.

And who gets to determine "more important" vs. "less important"? For some people, getting to the roots of something like the priesthood ban is vitally important. Who are you (or anyone else) to say it isn't?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Reconnecting with an old friend.

Says he found out through study that the church is not honest about its history, that the BoM is a 19th century fictitious work, etc.

Does anyone among the General Authorities actually care about members that feel betrayed by the white-washed history they are teaching?

How long must the archives be locked? How much longer will LDS historians be threatened by their ecclesiastical leaders?

When we will have an honest curriculum? We have the time and energy to teach young men to marry in their race, but we don't have the time and energy to actually inoculate members?

There is an explosion of information going on, all easily accessible, and the old games of hiding and dodging are not going to work. Is our only response to recruit an army of apologist bloggers to hit the same points that have been used for decades? Weak.

There is only one possible path. Complete truth. IF YOU HAVE ANY FAITH, then you must believe the truth will set us free. It's that simple. Have some faith that God will do his own work. God does not want obfuscation and subterfuge. Get out of God's way and let him prove HIMSELF.

My goodness it is very frustrating to be part of a church that doesn't have a suggestion box. But increasingly, members are not afraid to say what they think. By common consent. It was never intended that voices be silenced. It was never intended for there to be no discussions. And frankly, that path is just not going to work.

Care about things you can actually influence and change. Does this apply to church membership? Sometimes it's hard to say.

They have to white wash it because most people don't think this way. Most people want the white washed version.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They have to white wash it because most people don't think this way. Most people want the white washed version.

This is the same person who think it is incomprehensible that JS could have been anything but a knowing fraud.

In his own words, he is 100% in, or 100% out. It's a kind of concreteness. Juggling with one ball.

It's not that he isn't bright. But on this issue he is GWB. There is but only good and evil and never shall the twain meet.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is the same person who think it is incomprehensible that JS could have been anything but a knowing fraud.

In his own words, he is 100% in, or 100% out. It's a kind of concreteness. Juggling with one ball.

It's not that he isn't bright. But on this issue he is GWB. There is but only good and evil and never shall the twain meet.

Are you talking about me? I don't know if he was a knowing fraud. As I told you, I don't think this issue is important. Okay, what's your theory? Nietzche and others attributed Paul's supernatural experiences and rapture to his epilepsy. Did JS have similar ailments?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Come on. You know what I meant.

Just because there is more data available faster, doesn't mean we actually have more understanding.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And who gets to determine "more important" vs. "less important"? For some people, getting to the roots of something like the priesthood ban is vitally important. Who are you (or anyone else) to say it isn't?

I have my opinion, just like anyone else. I fail to see any compelling reason why a problem that has not existed for 30 years has any bearing on faith today.

There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of hard-to-understand moments in scripture and church history. If we each select our favorite to make our pet stumbling block, we are doing nothing more than demanding the Lord strengthen our faith on our terms, rather than on his.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Are you talking about me? I don't know if he was a knowing fraud. As I told you, I don't think this issue is important. Okay, what's your theory? Nietzche and others attributed Paul's supernatural experiences and rapture to his epilepsy. Did JS have similar ailments?

No, not everything is about you.

On the theory that JS had a mental disorder: the psychiatrist who I recently linked who wrote a speculative psychobiography of JS, from what I can tell from the reviews, argues for narcissistic personality disorder. Of course, this is in the context that JS is a fraud, not someone who believed he was truly a prophet. In the book edited by Waterman I also linked, apparently there is an author there that argues for bipolar disorder (per one of the reviews). I assume the argument is that he at times was manic, and in these periods of sleeplessness, grandiosity, delusion, and psychosis he produced his extraordinary claims.

These are facile explanations, I think, that are lazy and unsatisfying.