Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The So-Called "Middle Way"


Libs

Recommended Posts

Of course I disagree with your assessment of the objectives of apostates ...

I'm not surprised.

... but I do understand why it would appear this way to you.

Here comes the subtle evangelizing ... wait for it ...

Maintaining belief the truth-claims in the Mormon Church is like keeping a house of cards from falling down.

The smug assertion of Mormonism's inherent weakness and instability, followed by the expression of faux empathy:

Any motion, bump, sneeze, loud noise, or breath comes across as a deliberate attempt to undermine the whole thing. I’m sure it’s frustrating trying to champion such a fragile cause, so I have empathy for why you’ve become so cynical.

I love it!

Here we have a classic apostate evangelist construction. I could, I'm sure, quickly list a dozen or more posts, just from the past 24 hours, that follow this same general pattern.

Now, the hope of the apostate evangelist is that the target of his evangelism will fire back: "What do you mean by house of cards?! It's not a house of cards! Why do you say that?" Then the evangelist will proceed with the apostate equivalent of "the first discussion." What amazes me the most is that they manage to achieve the effect of "correlation" without an official bureaucratic entity to define it. It's all done pretty much intuitively. Quite impressive when you stop to think about it--it's almost as though there were some unseen coordinating spirit inspiring them all. ;)

Link to comment

Here comes the subtle evangelizing ... wait for it ...

The smug assertion of Mormonism's inherent weakness and instability, followed by the expression of faux empathy:

I love it!

Here we have a classic apostate evangelist construction. I could, I'm sure, quickly list a dozen or more posts, just from the past 24 hours, that follow this same general pattern.

Now, the hope of the apostate evangelist is that the target of his evangelism will fire back: "What do you mean by house of cards?! It's not a house of cards! Why do you say that?"

Your story was quite entertaining until you got to this point. As you and I both know, you would never dispute that it's a house of cards, because you know that that is an argument I'd win. Only the very most naïve believer would want to discuss actual issues with a critic. Those of you who know the weakness of your own position do everything in your power to twist the discussion into an ad hominem attack. Witness every post you make, including your response to this one.

The truth is I made the house of cards observation because it explains why you perceive unrelated and innocuous comments to be clever and deliberate attacks on your religion. In the hypothetical event you would have denied that it was a house of cards and enquired me to explain, I may have laughed at your feigned ignorance, but I wouldn’t try to argue with it.

Then the evangelist will proceed with the apostate equivalent of "the first discussion." What amazes me the most is that they manage to achieve the effect of "correlation" without an official bureaucratic entity to define it. It's all done pretty much intuitively. Quite impressive when you stop to think about it--it's almost as though there were some unseen coordinating spirit inspiring them all. ;)

Sometimes I envy you—the fantasy world you live in seems as exciting as a really cool game of Dungeons and Dragons.

Link to comment

Analytics:

Your story was quite entertaining until you got to this point. As you and I both know, you would never dispute that it's a house of cards, because you know that that is an argument I'd win.

In the immortal words of Sidney J. Mussburger: “Sure, sure.”

In any event, I do dispute that Mormonism is a house of cards, and actually find it quite elementary to defend every aspect of it. Furthermore, your expressed confidence in your own debating acumen notwithstanding, I’ve never considered you to be one of the formidable critics of Mormonism.

Only the very most naïve believer would want to discuss actual issues with a critic.

:lol:

I cannot tell you how much I enjoy it when one of the wolves dispenses with all pretense.

Of course, actual issues are routinely discussed by “naïve believers” in many venues outside the echo chamber that is The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©. I have personally concluded that the most effective forum for such discussion is that of formal publications. Recognizing that reality, I have transitioned my own apologetic efforts accordingly. I formally extend to you an invitation to consider, and then (employing your considerable prowess as a destroyer of card houses) to rebut both my own published arguments as well as those of my “naïve believer” colleagues. You can unlimber your formidable talents in rebuttal of The Interminable Roll – Determining the Original Length of the Scroll of Hor, which will appear in the next issue of The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture.

Those of you who know the weakness of your own position do everything in your power to twist the discussion into an ad hominem attack.

:lol: (again!)

So we are told. Frequently.

In any case, if you can find even one ad hominem attack in the article I reference above (or in any I publish subsequently), I will buy you lunch for each instance.

Sometimes I envy you—the fantasy world you live in seems as exciting as a really cool game of Dungeons and Dragons.

Ah, derisive dismissal—the trump card (as it were) of all apostate evangelists.

Incidentally, I will also be posting, on this board, within a couple weeks, a detailed and quite devastating (I believe) rebuttal to Rollo Tomasi’s recent unwarranted allegations against General/Bishop Robert Taylor Burton, the ancestor of current Presiding Bishop H. David Burton. I have been able to acquire what appears to be the full body of contemporary eyewitness testimony concerning the Morrisite War, and therefore I am confident that I can, with relative ease, dismantle the slanderous accusations tendered against the honorable General Burton (and, by extension, to his honorable great, great grandson).

So much for “naïve believers” being unwilling to substantively engage the issues. Indeed, what I have consistently discovered is that the deeper you dig into something that Mormon critics claim to be an “open and shut case,” the more you discover it is nothing of the sort—whether that be the Morrisite War or The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Link to comment

As a continued reply to the insinuation that “naïve believers” refuse to substantively engage critics, I also encourage readers to peruse these threads from the old “Pundits Forum”:

Textual Variants at Abraham 1:12

The KEP Abraham Manuscripts

ETA: Lest I be accused of vacating the discussion out of fear of Analytic's formidable debating skills, I should note that I will be traveling much in the next few days, and will probably not find any time to participate in online discussions.

Link to comment

In any event, I do dispute that Mormonism is a house of cards, and actually find it quite elementary to defend every aspect of it.

As I said I would, I hereby laugh at your feigned ignorance: :lol:

Furthermore, your expressed confidence in your own debating acumen notwithstanding, I’ve never considered you to be one of the formidable critics of Mormonism.

Your delusions to the contrary notwithstanding, I don’t recall ever expressing confidence in debating skills. You don't think I'm a formidable critic? I don’t think I am either. I’m glad we’ve found something to agree upon.

Of course, actual issues are routinely discussed by “naïve believers” in many venues outside the echo chamber that is The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©. I have personally concluded that the most effective forum for such discussion is that of formal publications. Recognizing that reality, I have transitioned my own apologetic efforts accordingly. I formally extend to you an invitation to consider, and then (employing your considerable prowess as a destroyer of card houses) to rebut both my own published arguments as well as those of my “naïve believer” colleagues. You can unlimber your formidable talents in rebuttal of The Interminable Roll – Determining the Original Length of the Scroll of Hor, which will appear in the next issue of The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture.

Touche. To the extent that the original length of the scroll of Hor is an actual issue, you've proven that you are in fact willing to address it.

Speaking for myself, I don’t know what the original length of the scroll of Hor has to do with anything, but if your religious convictions dictate that it is important for it to be a certain length, then more power to you.

While I appreciate the formal invitation, the length of the scroll of Hor doesn’t interest me. When you get around to publishing in a scholarly journal your ideas about the so-called “apostate evangelist motive power” or any of the other barbs you’ve attacked me with, please bring it to my attention; I’ll be sure to read it.

In any case, if you can find even one ad hominem attack in the article I reference above (or in any I publish subsequently), I will buy you lunch for each instance.

I’m glad you are avoiding ad hominem attacks in certain venues. I hope that you find it agreeable and that you consider avoiding them in other venues as well.

Link to comment

The contrast between how people see themselves (or want others to see them) and how they actually behave can often be most amusing. For example, over on the sty, Analytics' home board, there is currently a thread discussing the disestablishment of the Parramatta stake in Australia. Now it happens that the members of the herd describe themselves as being merely interested in Mormon things, but with no animosity towards the Church whatsoever. And yet, when the Church takes one step back (after about twenty steps forward) the chorus of triumphant schadenfreude immediately begins, as they start grunting and oinking about the Church's imminent implosion. The hatred is both palpable and overpowering, but will they ever admit that it even exists? You should live so long!

And likewise with our dear friend Analytics. He describes himself as a thoroughly fine fellow who is as impartial as Nestor when it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ, and who only wants to help people understand it better. Then someone says something that gets up his nose, and the truth comes out, thus:

Your story was quite entertaining until you got to this point. As you and I both know, you would never dispute that it's a house of cards, because you know that that is an argument I'd win.

Let's break this down:

Your story was quite entertaining until you got to this point.

Mockery. Par for the course.

As you and I both know, you would never dispute that it's a house of cards,

The claim that Mormonism is a "house of cards" is industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon hate propaganda. It is also false. I am hard pressed to tell which of these features makes it more attractive to Analytics.

because you know that that is an argument I'd win.

Anyone who is familiar with Will's posting history -- and right now on the sty, Analytics' home board, there are at least half a dozen dedicated Will-bashing theads -- will know that the above is an assertion that the poster cannot plausibly claim to hold a good-faith belief in.

The reality is the opposite of Analytics' assertion. Not only does Will not "know," or believe, or even reasonably suspect that Analytics would win such an argument, neither does Analytics. Bluster is a well-known feature of gamesmanship. Analytics is playing the strutting rooster, hoping that his opponent will be intimidated into backing down.

But the main point here is that he is arguing a hard-core anti-Mormon position. And it is his own.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

The contrast between how people see themselves (or want others to see them) and how they actually behave can often be most amusing. For example, over on the sty, Analytics' home board, there is currently a thread discussing the disestablishment of the Parramatta stake in Australia. Now it happens that the members of the herd describe themselves as being merely interested in Mormon things, but with no animosity towards the Church whatsoever. And yet, when the Church takes one step back (after about twenty steps forward) the chorus of triumphant schadenfreude immediately begins, as they start grunting and oinking about the Church's imminent implosion. The hatred is both palpable and overpowering, but will they ever admit that it even exists? You should live so long!

And likewise with our dear friend Analytics. He describes himself as a thoroughly fine fellow who is as impartial as Nestor when it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ, and who only wants to help people understand it better. Then someone says something that gets up his nose, and the truth comes out ...

Funny how that works, huh?

[As per usual, I cannot improve upon the succinct perfection of your comments. I stand in the shadow of your literary mastery.]

Link to comment

Funny how that works, huh?

It is funny. Just to flesh out what we’re talking about, let’s look at a typical example. On my website, after paraphrasing what the missionaries teach about how to pay tithing, I made the following comment:

The church keeps careful records of how much you donate, and once a year will sit you down with a priesthood leader representing God. He will show you a figure and ask you if this is ten-percent of your income. He will then put into the church's records whether or not you are obeying God in paying a full tithing. If you have a child who chooses to get married in the Mormon Temple and you are not a full tithe payer, you will be deemed unworthy to go to the temple and witness your child be married.

On the other hand, if you ask the bishop for financial statements of what the church does with the money it collects, he will respectfully tell you that that is none of your business.

It's ironic that a church that wants to know so much about your personal finances is unwilling to disclose the details of its own.

http://www.lds4u.com/lesson4/howtodonate.htm

Pahoran calls these observations “well poisoning,” apparently because he thinks that after reading my comments, the well is poisoned and there is nothing that the missionaries, members, or Holy Ghost can say that will cause the investigator to want to join his church. It's curious that he thinks my arguments are so strong.

Pahoran is rarely willing to talk about the actual issues. Rather than actually addressing my points, he prefers to stick things up my nose, hoping for a reaction. If you guys get one, you dance in victory.

Funny how that works.

Link to comment
He will show you a figure and ask you if this is ten-percent of your income.

The questions should be:

1.) Is this (pointing at the dollar amount) the correct amount of tithing you paid according to your own records? - The purpose here being to reconcile any differences between your own records and those of the Church

2.) Does this figure represent a full tithe?

Even if some bishops do indeed ask it in the way you wrote (and they shouldn't and I personally haven't had one ask me that), I think you're trying to send the message that the Bishop is being invasive about a member's financial details to set up your punchline that the Church is a big dang hypocrite with the "On the other hand" line.

It's disingenuous.

Link to comment

The questions should be:

1.) Is this (pointing at the dollar amount) the correct amount of tithing you paid according to your own records? - The purpose here being to reconcile any differences between your own records and those of the Church

2.) Does this figure represent a full tithe?

Even if some bishops do indeed ask it in the way you wrote (and they shouldn't and I personally haven't had one ask me that), I think you're trying to send the message that the Bishop is being invasive about a member's financial details to set up your punchline that the Church is a big dang hypocrite with the "On the other hand" line.

It's disingenuous.

Funny how that works.

Those are the questions I get asked. He doesn't ask me where I spend the rest of my money. He doesn't ask about my investments or my debts either.

Funny that he isn't any where near as curious about my finances as our critics are about the Church's.

Indeed, funny how that works.

Link to comment

Since tithing is not my money, it is merely a question of whether I have given the money that is not mine back to its owner or not. I like to think I can comfortably say yes, I was indeed returning someone else's money. I don't care how they spend it. If I felt the recipient wasn't the owner, I wouldn't give them the money.

Link to comment

It is funny. Just to flesh out what we’re talking about, let’s look at a typical example. On my website, after paraphrasing what the missionaries teach about how to pay tithing, I made the following comment:

Pahoran calls these observations “well poisoning,” apparently because he thinks that after reading my comments, the well is poisoned and there is nothing that the missionaries, members, or Holy Ghost can say that will cause the investigator to want to join his church. It's curious that he thinks my arguments are so strong.

Pahoran is rarely willing to talk about the actual issues. Rather than actually addressing my points, he prefers to stick things up my nose, hoping for a reaction. If you guys get one, you dance in victory.

Funny how that works.

'Analytics'

Did it ever occur to you and the rest of the denizens of the sty that you might be able to actually find some enjoyment if you would stop hating and actually get a life.

Before you begin with the assurances that you are actually happy look yourself in the mirror and actually convince yourself that you are not lying to yourself. You see someone who is happy with themselves is not prone to continually trying to destroy someone elses happiness.

Link to comment

The questions should be:

1.) Is this (pointing at the dollar amount) the correct amount of tithing you paid according to your own records? - The purpose here being to reconcile any differences between your own records and those of the Church

2.) Does this figure represent a full tithe?

Even if some bishops do indeed ask it in the way you wrote (and they shouldn't and I personally haven't had one ask me that), I think you're trying to send the message that the Bishop is being invasive about a member's financial details to set up your punchline that the Church is a big dang hypocrite with the "On the other hand" line.

It's disingenuous.

I don't see a meaningful difference between, "is this figure ten-percent of your income?" and "Does this figure represent a full tithe?"

I don't know that I'd say the church is being "a big dang hypocrite", but the situation is ironic. Some people are bothered by the issues raised in this quote, others aren't. My point is simply that investigators ought to be aware of them before committing.

Link to comment

'Analytics'

Did it ever occur to you and the rest of the denizens of the sty that you might be able to actually find some enjoyment if you would stop hating and actually get a life.

Before you begin with the assurances that you are actually happy look yourself in the mirror and actually convince yourself that you are not lying to yourself. You see someone who is happy with themselves is not prone to continually trying to destroy someone elses happiness.

"Denizens of the sty?" Isn't that an ironic way to address somebody you are lecturing about not hating?

Link to comment

Since tithing is not my money, it is merely a question of whether I have given the money that is not mine back to its owner or not. I like to think I can comfortably say yes, I was indeed returning someone else's money. I don't care how they spend it. If I felt the recipient wasn't the owner, I wouldn't give them the money.

That's fine, of course. I do worry about people who feel obligated to donate money when they really can't afford to, but in general, there are any number of worse things to do with money than give it to the LDS Church. I do admire the freedom from greed that you exhibit.

Link to comment

I don't know that its freedom from greed so much as a feeling of obligation to give something back to God.

As to affording it, I think the relativeness of tithing reflects that one can afford it, we aren't sacrificing "extra", we are merely removing part of what has been given to us and giving it back, a kind of return on investment. I don't feel, when I ran a company, that the required return on investment from those who invested in my firm was an extra sacrifice, it was merely something that I did in the course of the business venture.

Link to comment
I don't see a meaningful difference between, "is this figure ten-percent of your income?" and "Does this figure represent a full tithe?"

I certainly do.

The former diverts focus away from the principle of tithing and obedience to it. The latter is simply a request and response between Bishop and adherent regarding the law of the tithe.

Your website write-up that was quoted on here tries do exactly that: divert focus away from the purpose of the law of the tithe and focus on how hypocritical the Church is being. You can dress it up with a less offensive word such as 'ironic,' but I think it's abundantly clear what conclusion you'd like your readers to draw.

Link to comment

'Analytics'

Did it ever occur to you and the rest of the denizens of the sty that you might be able to actually find some enjoyment if you would stop hating and actually get a life.

Before you begin with the assurances that you are actually happy look yourself in the mirror and actually convince yourself that you are not lying to yourself. You see someone who is happy with themselves is not prone to continually trying to destroy someone elses happiness.

Out of curiosity, I was interested in how much time I spend on my alleged "home board" which you folks lovingly refer to as "the sty". I've made 665 posts there since I joined on 2/15/2007, which comes out to 0.44 posts per day. In comparison, I've only posted here 619 times, which represents 0.32 posts per day. Thus, it would seem that "the sty" is in fact my "home board."

Pahoran tries to represent me as a full-time anti-Mormon. In your words, somebody who is "continually trying to destroy someone elses happiness." Given that I haven't added content or edited lds4u.com in several years, and given that I post on Mormon internet forums 0.76 times per day, how much do I need to slow down before I'm merely a part-time anti-Mormon?

EDIT: The 619 are only "active" posts. I just noticed I've posted here 2,126 times since 12/28/05, which comes out to 1.1 posts per day over that stretch. I take two things away: One, here is my home board, and two, I am posting a lot less than I used to.

Link to comment

I certainly do.

The former diverts focus away from the principle of tithing and obedience to it. The latter is simply a request and response between Bishop and adherent regarding the law of the tithe.

Your website write-up that was quoted on here tries do exactly that: divert focus away from the purpose of the law of the tithe and focus on how hypocritical the Church is being.

I believe these are valid issues. Investigators might want to know that the church doesn’t disclose its financial reports to its donors. Investigators might want to know that temple attendance is restricted to full tithe payers.

The web page also contains my best effort to fairly represent the church’s point of view as well.

Of course if somebody doesn't want to look at the church from different angles, that site isn't for them.

Link to comment

I believe these are valid issues. Investigators might want to know that the church doesn’t disclose its financial reports to its donors. Investigators might want to know that temple attendance is restricted to full tithe payers.

The web page also contains my best effort to fairly represent the church’s point of view as well.

Of course if somebody doesn't want to look at the church from different angles, that site isn't for them.

How do you feel about the fact that temple attendance is restricted to those who keep the law of chastity, who don't abuse their wives or children, who don't practice polygamy, etc?

Link to comment

How do you feel about the fact that temple attendance is restricted to those who keep the law of chastity, who don't abuse their wives or children, who don't practice polygamy, etc?

Personally, I don’t really care and I don’t have any feelings about it one way or the other. I do believe investigators should know about those things, and I do in fact list all of the standard questions elsewhere on the site.

Link to comment

I have been super busy the past several days and have only been peripherally aware of this thread where Analytics appears to be trying to hold his own in a game of dog-pile.

I haven't read the thread anywhere near through, but want to write before I dash that Analytics is a good guy; he is fair in his judgments and doesn't just automatically assume the worst about Mormons or about anybody, for that matter.

We have many issues on which we agree and are able to respectfully disagree on the rest.

Just for the record . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment
Nasty. It has turned nasty.

Judgment has been rendered and I have been weighed in "your" balance and am found wanting.

Analytics has it pegged: candor is treated as sophistication; openness is called "proselytizing"; the prevailing sentiment of the "actives" at Church does not welcome ANY ideas that might open discussion to a wider view.

"Analytics" is, of course, a perfectly conventional anti-Mormon. (The fact that he denies it is neither here nor there; they all deny it. He is merely more stubborn than most in demanding that others accept his ridiculously transparent cover story.) And you, unsurprisingly, agree with him.

I don't actually regard your thinking as sophisticated at all. I just find your continued self-congratulation wearying.

As in all things, "it depends". What is the basis of your own B&W faith? What under-pinning defines your testimony? Is it faith in the BoM, ergo in Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration? Or are you a Christian first, Mormon second? What if you are a Mormon first, a Christian second? What does that mean to other Christians of the world if you are only a "Christian" because Joseph Smith's revelations make that possible? (Of course, we both know that "they" do not consider you a Christian at all.)

In what way is that relevant to anything presently under discussion?

The point is that to say "yes to the atonement of Jesus Christ; but no to the dogmatic, extreme ('official') doctrine that it must necessarily be literal, by a singular understanding of a historical, literal Jesus Christ" is an incoherent position. It is analogous to saying "yes to chocolate cake; but no to the dogmatic, extreme ('official') doctrine that it must necessarily be literal, by a literal inclusion of such ingredients as flour, eggs, milk, butter, sugar and cocoa."

The atonement of Jesus Christ means that Jesus really suffered, really died and was really resurrected. Or, IOW, that the "Jesus Story" really is grounded in historical verities. Without those literal events there is no atonement, and you are saying "yes" to something utterly empty of meaning. While you are at it, you might as well say "yes" to cake without ingredients, music without sound, paintings without paint and canvas or football without teams, a field or a ball.

Judging again without any factual basis for even making such a judgment. In this case, you assert here that I do not think for myself; that rather I just mindlessly go along with the "world in ruins", whatever "it" says, I swallow it all hook, line and sinker.

QB, you have an amazing talent for self-parody. All I was doing was turning your sickly self-congratulation back on you. You were the one who insisted that everyone who "started to think and question for ourselves" and actually "go looking for answers" will "come to other conclusions" and abandon the faith of the Latter-day Saints. In contrast, I suppose, to the mindlessly following "sheeple" who lack the brilliant imagination or heroic courage to do that. I merely turned your pat stereotype back on itself, and showed you how it looked to those who don't share your conviction of superiority. The fact that your opinions have ended up pretty much in the middle of the "main stream" is consistent with what I would expect, but is not consistent with your pose of Heroically Independent Thought.

The point, QB, is simply this: I have attempted to show you how absurdly inflated your self-description is, and how ridiculous it is to insist that following a much larger and more pervasively influential crowd than the Latter-day Saints makes you so brilliantly independent-minded and imaginative. If that isn't sufficient to persuade you to stop your endless series of posts about how superior your mind is, then can you at least stop them because you'd rather people didn't see you as a loudmouthed braggart who can't say two complete sentences without boasting about his imagined superiority?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...