Jump to content

Ouagadougou

Members
  • Content Count

    944
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

357 Excellent

About Ouagadougou

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think you are just compensating for something; maybe it is frustration, insecurity, or your desire to project yourself online as keyboard warrior fulfilling his duty as a "public servant" to defend against such evil heathens as me. Are you this much bark with no bite in your daily interactions with real people? Mormons trying to give politically correct insults (*metaphors) is hilarious and cringe-worthy at the same time. 😂 Either way, I find it comical that my initial post, which had nothing to do with you, annoyed or bothered you so much that you just had to chime in with a lame attempt to try and attack me personally. What's even more laughable is your "metaphor" wasn't even a true insult to me because it lacked flavor and spice (or the ingredients only foul language gives to a perfectly baked insult, IMO). It's as if you want to be a rebel but can't really cross the line or take the gloves off: similar to the Mormon who drinks non-alcholic beer to appear like he is being defiant, while at the same time not technically breaking any commandments or rules.
  2. Below is my original post that he apparently finds to be so terrible and is, as he stated, just "flawed delusions of reality." The fact that I choose to align my personal beliefs/ideologies based on science means that I am now just "wallowing in a status as a defender." I was simply responding to this thread about how I came to my own conclusions WRT disbelief in the church. If my posts and the way I express my thoughts are so annoying and painful for him, then why respond to me in the first place and then "wallow" on about my supposed "wallowing?" I think his responses reek of insecurity, anger, frustration, and desperation. "For me personally, my disbelief in the church wasn't just about social/ethical issues or some moral inconsistencies here or there; rather, it emerged primarily from several huge problems in the church's underlying narrative and truth claims, which, IMO, cannot be reconciled. Even Richard Bushman said the following:Richard Bushman: "I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change."http://ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/Likewise, I think "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- and as it relates to the church's truth claims -- I have arrived at my own conclusion that these claims are not true and that there is no reasonable evidence (other than feelings) to substantiate them.Based on the compilation of all of the major problems with the church's truth claims, I think when using Occam's Razor a person can reasonably come to his/her own conclusion that the church's truth claims are not what they are...and simply cannot be sustained or reconciled. For some people, relying on just warm and special feelings is not enough evidence or justification to support such extraordinary truth claims.Finally, I compare my disbelief in the church's truth claims to other fairytales, myths, or stories I once believed as a child. At one time as a child, I believed in myths or imaginary characters (as most of us did), but as I grew older, logic and science began to play an even more important role in coming to my own conclusions. I agree with Richard Bushman when he said: "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." For me it wasn't just about "moral intuitions and stances," or that church issues were "logically immoral;" rather, it was about the narrative itself not being compatible with science and logic; it's more about applying logic, reason, and science to how I view the world and any religious institution's claims, teachings, or policies."
  3. What is your argument even--that I can't agree with a Bushman statement? I am in agreement with what HE said about the church's narrative, that doesn't mean I assume he and I have the same opinion on every subject. Furthermore, what is weird and creepy is you coming out of right field and responding to me stating that you picture me as a little kid. Weirdo...
  4. I can't personally speak for Bushman's opinion's on every matter, but can say that I agree with his statement that "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." On this one topic, I think Bushman's statement aligns with my belief that the narrative is not true.
  5. I think he is frustrated because Bushman, who is LDS and one of the top scholars on American religion even said that: "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." Those are not my words; rather, I was just highlighting that I agree with this statement in my original post.
  6. Wrong. Here is what I said in my original post: "Finally, I compare my disbelief in the church's truth claims to other fairytales, myths, or stories I once believed as a child. At one time as a child, I believed in myths or imaginary characters (as most of us did), but as I grew older, logic and science began to play an even more important role in coming to my own conclusions. I agree with Richard Bushman when he said: "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." For me it wasn't just about "moral intuitions and stances," or that church issues were "logically immoral;" rather, it was about the narrative itself not being compatible with science and logic; it's more about applying logic, reason, and science to how I view the world and any religious institution's claims, teachings, or policies." And here are my replies back to you: "BTW, if my arguments are so "shoddy," why then does one of the leading scholars on American religious history (Richard Bushman) even say the following?" "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." "I can't speak for him personally, but I agree with his statement that, "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." I'm sure that (like all of us) there might be things we agree on and other things we that we disagree on." "I am saying I don't believe the dominate narrative can be sustained or is true...oh, and Bushman says the same thing as well." So, from the very beginning, I said I agree with what Bushman said and quoted him in my original post and agree with HIS statement.
  7. I am saying I don't believe the dominate narrative can be sustained or is true...oh, and Bushman says the same thing as well.
  8. I can't speak for him personally, but I agree with his statement that, "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." I'm sure that (like all of us) there might be things we agree on and other things we that we disagree on.
  9. Cool random story/comment..it looks like I struck a nerve. You went out of your way just to randomly show/tell me this and make such an "insulting" (what you think is insulting) comparison? Some Mormons trying to be insulting and on the edge is actually quite comical... If you are going to try and attack me personally, at least be a man about it, and use some foul language...and leave the poor innocent kid in the pic out of it. BTW, if my arguments are so "shoddy," why then does one of the leading scholars on American religious history (Richard Bushman) even say the following? "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained."
  10. For me personally, my disbelief in the church wasn't just about social/ethical issues or some moral inconsistencies here or there; rather, it emerged primarily from several huge problems in the church's underlying narrative and truth claims, which, IMO, cannot be reconciled. Even Richard Bushman said the following: Richard Bushman: "I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change." http://ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/ Likewise, I think "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- and as it relates to the church's truth claims -- I have arrived at my own conclusion that these claims are not true and that there is no reasonable evidence (other than feelings) to substantiate them. Based on the compilation of all of the major problems with the church's truth claims, I think when using Occam's Razor a person can reasonably come to his/her own conclusion that the church's truth claims are not what they are...and simply cannot be sustained or reconciled. For some people, relying on just warm and special feelings is not enough evidence or justification to support such extraordinary truth claims. Finally, I compare my disbelief in the church's truth claims to other fairytales, myths, or stories I once believed as a child. At one time as a child, I believed in myths or imaginary characters (as most of us did), but as I grew older, logic and science began to play an even more important role in coming to my own conclusions. I agree with Richard Bushman when he said: "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." For me it wasn't just about "moral intuitions and stances," or that church issues were "logically immoral;" rather, it was about the narrative itself not being compatible with science and logic; it's more about applying logic, reason, and science to how I view the world and any religious institution's claims, teachings, or policies.
  11. If I Google "moral panic," or "outrage" I bet it will probably show how many members are publically "panicking" over a movie poster because they think it is religious discrimination. Meanwhile, when it comes to innocent kids getting abused by leaders in the church, IMO, it isn't the same public "panic" or "outrage."
  12. It also comes down to $...you can't enter the temple without paying tithing; 10% of my income just to enter the temple for a few hours? Hard pass for me...plus I like to drink tea. 😀
  13. I think it has happened more than enough (even within the LDS Churc) to warrant moral outrage. I just publically see members displaying more outrage over a movie poster...
  14. No, I do not go to the temple; I probably go to church four to six times a year I would say at this point, mainly for utilitarian purposes. That is, I think most LDS members are good people and strive to live a clean life, so attending when I feel like it can maybe be a benefit; however, I don't accept most of the church's truth claims. Furthermore, I have attended the temple (many times) in the past, but feel that temple work is just, in a way, busy work to keep members preoccupied. Some members really enjoy the temple, so I don't want to paint a picture that it is all bad, I just have a different opinion. I think my energy and time are of more value if directed toward those alive today who are in need of assistance; I try to help out at homeless shelters or soup kitchens. Finally, I personally gain more spiritually when I spend time in nature, or by meditating, or doing something with my family than going to the temple. For me, the concept of a "temple" is now a state of mind and not an actual place.
  15. It almost seems that President Nelson is like the new President McKay of his time -- in that he is implementing a lot of change thus far.
×
×
  • Create New...