All Activity

I can’t stick to the subject when the other thinks I mean something different than I did (if the topic is color and I say red, but they insist I am saying blue). I don’t know if I will be able to ignore, but since it does seem hopeless at this point to be understood, that does seem the most rational solution.

Okay. You've had your say. Let's get back to the topic. Or you can ignore my posts. Or both. Thanks, -Smac

Well, you could just stick to the topic, or ignore my posts, or both. Thanks, -Smac

I think we have differing expectations. You seem to think "common courtesy" imposes an obligation to respond. I don't.

Board nannying? A lot of that going on here!

Why?

When what you say does not connect with what the other person said, that isn’t disagreement. And insisting it is contrary to others repeatedly saying “that’s not what I said” or other similar comments will not lead to understanding that you can then effectively disagree with.

I meant engaging with others’ comments on the topics you start rather than repeating yourself. What you say often doesn’t connect with what others say. And I make it personal because you don’t engage others’ comments on the topic, it’s not about your personality, but your method. Essentially the same that you did with Dan McClellan.

Back a decade ago, sure. Nowadays this feels unlikely when there’s one or two threads that have significant traffic, especially when a thread is essentially dead except for a post or two and you had been active in it up to that point, so a request to you wouldn’t be lost among a ton of posts. For example, here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75498-dan-mcclellan-on-mormon-stories/page/27/#findComment-1210278189 And yes, there is no obligation, but there is common courtesy to not just walk away and start a new thread to be involved in as if the other person does not exist once you lose interest. Even just saying you are not interested anymore would be sufficient, imo, rather than leaving a request for clarification hanging. I think everyone here understands getting tired of a topic and just having enough of it.

Very well. I’ll leave it to you and Ken and Van. Probably best for all.

Thanks. I think CB's and Calm's repeated references to "other people" agreeing with them to be kind of weird. It's argumentum ad populum. Other people like my posting style, so where does that leave us? My take: It takes us to a return to discussing the topic, with each of us at liberty to ignore posts we dislike. Thanks, -Smac

Really sound like a problem in the making.

Figuratively. It's not an "excuse." It's an illustration of a principle, which is this: There may be circumstances in which it is moral to disobey civil law. For Latter-day Saints, who are commanded to obey the laws of the land, this can create a moral conundrum. Here's another illustration: If you and your husband were moving to another country, and if that county conditioned your entry and residency on you getting a divorce (because the country has laws against same-sex couples/marriage), would you obey that law? Or if the county required you to affirm under oath that you are not in a same-sex marriage, would you make that affirmation? Yes, you stacked the deck there. You are free to speak as you like. As am I. Yet again, someone is conflating disagreement with misunderstanding. I understand that some people dislike my posting style. I disagree with, and reject, requests that I alter my posting style to suit your preferences. Do you see the difference? Thanks, -Smac

Bingo. I think if we all remembered this, the forum would go much smoother. For the record, I don't agree with the sentiments recently expressed about you. There is far too much nannying going on...

You’ve received similar feedback from multiple participants and you ignore and defend. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. That more than one person imputes motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold does not validate those imputations. Instead, you go passive aggressive and indirectly accuse me of being immature. Classy. And ad hominem. Sure would be nice to discuss the topic instead. We are each at liberty to proceed as we see fit. But yes, if you key your participation on this board on how much you can control and dictate how others participate (such as myself), I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I think there is a substantial mismatch between my reasons for participating here and your expectations of my reasons, and of my participation. My posts do not conform to your expectations (which apparently involve "socializing"), and I am not inclined to change my posts to conform to them. If that frustrates you, then perhaps you are better off ignoring my posts. I wish you well. Thanks, -Smac

You literally sliced and diced my post as an excuse to still use the Nazi in the attic when THIS situation is nothing like lying about a Jew in the attic. As I said in the post, "I know it is a game you like to play, but it does erode trust that you are engaging in a good faith discussion like Mustard has pointed out." Do you seriously don't understand why multiple people complain about your fisking technique on a board that is suppose to be discussion based?

When you refuse to answer questions that might clarify your position, there is not much else we can do. I generally respond to inquiries, quite a bit in fact. In any event, the imputation of ill motives is, in my view, a form of ad hominem. I have questions not responded to all the time. It's just the way these boards work. We're not obligated to each other. We lose track of discussions. We may lose interest in discussions. I may not want to respond to questions about me instead of the topic. As for "not much else we can do," I disagree. We could return to discussing the topic rather than the participants in it. Hard to keep track of every thread and every discussion within each thread. And it's not like any of us is obligated to each other. Take, for example, Nehor. I regularly let him "have the last word" because I find his provocateur schtick and frequent lack of substantive commentary/insight and dialed-to-eleven sarcasm and personal hostility to frequently detract from discussion of the topic at hand. Rather than dwell on Nehor, though, I generally try to get back to discussing the topic. Similarly, I find your tendency to personalize discussions frequently detracts from discussion of the topic. I would prefer to focus on the topic. If I misunderstand something, that can be pointed out and demonstrated (rather than, say, simply assumed and followed by lectures). Most of the time, though, I think I do understand, I just disagree, and that disagreement is then construed by some as, and publicly declared to be, me "misunderstanding" something, which is another form of ad hominem. I don't come to this board for "connection." That's an expectation I have, I think, repeatedly rejected. As I noted to Mustard a few weeks ago, I don't come here to "socialize." I come here to discuss and debate topics pertaining to or touching on the Church and the Restored Gospel, quite often difficult ones. As for "concern for the other," I really don't know how to respond to that. None of us knows each other. I am generally quite civil and respectful in my comments. You are, of course, free to board nanny and personalize threads, as you frequently do, but I wish you wouldn't. My sense is that I have ruffled some feathers and outright offended some (and others have done that to me). As you say, online text communication is never perfect. More to the point, though, is that many of the topics raised here are controversial, which means participants will understandably have differing viewpoints on them. When that happens, disagreement can become less about the topic, and commentary can devolve into various manifestations of ad hominem and other forms of fallacious reasoning. I think communication is hindered when discussions become personalized, when terrible motives are imputed (and rarely demonstrated), and where logical fallacies overwhelm substantive interaction and focus on the topic. More mindreading and tone policing and board nannying. Sure would be nice to focus on the topics of discussion, rather than endless personalizing of threads. How about this: I will let you say what you think, and in ways that you deem fit (within the parameters of the board rules and general civility), and I'll ask that you reciprocate that accommodation. And this: If you don't care for the content or tone or format or style or whatever about my posts, you can ignore them. I would prefer that, as I don't answer to you and don't feel obligated to conform to your expectations and preferences. But again, you are free to say what you like, and participate in ways that you like. Argumentum ad populum. The valuable thing about a message board is that if a misunderstanding arises, it can be clarified and corrected. For example, you regularly impute things onto me that I think just are not so. I often - though not always - respond to clarify my perspective, often to seemingly no effect. If you still think I am "misunderstanding," then perhaps we can just be okay with that and move on. No need for ongoing lectures and tone policing. Okay. I disagree. I think big ideas and topics are often worth parsing out in ways that I like. While you sometimes (frequently? always?) take that as me missing "the whole picture," I don't think that is the case very often. It's just you making assumptions (and negative ones), or else just grousing about other participants and detracting from discussion of the topic at hand. Again, I don't come here to "socialize" or to "connect." That you and Mustard and others may come here to do that is all fine and dandy, but I would ask that you stop faulting me for not joining. I come here to discuss topics, not me. So in the end, I don't really care to discuss your armchair psychoanalysis of me, your imputing motives to me, your critiques of my writing style and supposed "misunderstandings," your lectures about me and my supposed moral failings ("real connection or concern for the other..." "I go by the rule every man a potential rapist") and whatever. I would prefer that you discuss the topics, not me. There may have been times in the past when there was a sense of camaraderie and conviviality on this board, but those days are, in my view, long gone. I participate here because I am interested in discussing the Church and the Restored Gospel, and particularly to listen to those who have viewpoints on these things which vary from my own, and who are willing to explain their viewpoints. Thanks, -Smac

You’ve received similar feedback from multiple participants and you ignore and defend. I’m tempted to be immature and respond the way you typically respond. Instead, i will say, this site is no longer of interest for me. It’s so frustrating, in fact, that I dislike how I participate. I need to change my interactions or stop participating at all.

And you know this how?

When you refuse to answer questions that might clarify your position, there is not much else we can do. You do go missing from threads at times though after someone has asked you something. I don’t believe you intentionally misconstrued what is being asked or set up your analysis style for that purpose, but your method of answering (breaking into small parts and apparently not reading to the end of a post before answering and then not adjusting at least what you have written when you do read the rest of the post) tends to cause you to misconstrue what the other is saying as you seem to fill in gaps unnecessarily—some questions you ask at times aren’t much related to what was said, it comes across as if you are having a different conversation to me—and that can lead to incorrect assumptions or inferences…most unnecessary if the post was treated as a whole, though communication is never perfect. And since many posters have pointed this out to you, how your method makes you misunderstand rather than comprehend what they are saying (it’s not just disagreement as you disagree with stuff they weren’t talking about at times) and yet you still continue to use it, I can understand why some might see you as just looking for a platform for your own ideas without any real connection or concern for the other. I think there may be another possibility….you have a process that feels right to you and likely works well in other areas of your life and not to use it is creates a sense of discomfort, disorder, incompleteness perhaps. If I am right, it’s unfortunate because the process is preventing you from understanding in many cases (based on what I have experienced of your analysis of my own posts and others’ similar comments of theirs). In essence, I think you are using the wrong tools to examine details….mental scissors (that cut apart and isolate ideas and even phrases from the greater context) vs a magnifying glass perhaps (where one can look closely, but that type of temporary isolation of details still leaves the construction of the comments intact so when one pulls back, one can look at the whole picture so as to put the details one identified together in the original pattern rather than create a new one filled more with one own ideas than the other.

I have edited my previous post on this sleepless Thursday morning. The reason is that I felt that upon re-reading it, I could make more plain to Teddy and other LDS what I was trying to say. I will add here that it is almost necessary to at least somewhat "like" a teaching before giving any faith claim a fair hearing. If you read this Teddy, I appreciate your remark above that you liked the LDS plan "better". Do we know of anyone who believes reluctantly? Who knows of someone who is familiar with a belief system that they like better than another, but have forced themselves to embrace something for which they have less preference? I know I haven't done that. I came to believe in Catholicism only after I began to like it first. Over the years, I have become familiar with this passage somewhere in the Book of Mormon (BOM) which appears to assert that if Christians believe in infant baptism, it is because that means that they also believe that unbaptized babies will be damned to an unjust Hell. If that were true, who could like it? I understand opposition to such a cruel doctrine. Thankfully, it is a teaching that St. Augustine has had to retract in spirit prison or in Heaven! He taught that at one point in his life, maybe assuming the reasoning that appears in the text of the BOM, as the reason why in ancient America, infant baptism was practised. But everybody should recognize that it doesn't necessarily follow that infant baptism implies what Augustine once taught. The Catholic Church never accepted it, probably sensing that it would be impossible for anyone to love God and proclaim His goodness, if He approved of that to happen to dead babies. There is little said directly about the condition of unbaptized children in our deposit of faith, EXCEPT, that we are always to trust in God's goodness. God is definitely good. That is enough for the Church to reject Augustine's teaching, and that problem is resolved. We haven't talked about infant baptism for a long time. For some time now, whenever we have, I have suggested a solution to the dilemma that solved my indignation at being thought to hold that dead babies go to Hell, without declaring the BOM to be false in asserting what some in ancient America believed. Since the BOM is not considered a revelation of what was happening in present day America, I said it was plausible that such a horrendous teaching had taken root in ancient BOM America. At the same time, I also insisted that Latter-day Saints would be mistaken if they thought that infant baptism necessarily implies that a baby that is unbaptized necessarily goes to an horrible Hell. As I briefly explained in my previous post, the Catholic faith insists that God is not limited to salvation through the Sacraments. That solution I have offered about distunctions between infant baptism in the old world and American in ancient times, does not enable us to believe the same things. But it seems to me like it can resolve tensions about whether the Catholic belief outside the historical BOM times and landscape, could begin to be thought somewhat likable, and certainly without despising it as evil, before we could even discuss it. I fear that what we have seen in this current thread is a similar situation where an LDS party, who is probably one of many, not knowing the Catholic teaching perfectly, is hindered from even considering embracing a religion that has a teaching that they find distasteful compared to what they already have. If one religion has a teaching so inferior to another as to perceive belief in a God that does not give everyone sufficient grace to be saved, one would be rightly inclined to dislike it, and refuse to even consider its teaching. If even one doctrine is repulsive, the whole religion is impossible to embrace. I will also say this with all sincerity. To be misinformed about another religion is not necessarily a culpable offense. It can be. But God alone knows. God will never punish anyone for hating horrible teachings that have been mistakenly attributed to whatever true religion there is. To sum up, I recognize that no one can embrace a religion that they do not at least like. I am not dogmatic about it, but I think most intellects are not so disciplined as to be capable of such an activity, and will almost always work out ways to find an unlikable proposition to be false. I do not merely like the Catholic faith in its totality. I love it. I believe that it is the best news that the poor children of Adam, could ever hear. It is better by far than if Adam had never fallen, and I think we sort of agree with LDS on this? Adam's fall, becomes in Christ, Adam's felix culpa, a "happy fault", for which we should rejoice continually in gladness, wonder, and adoration! I will appreciate and try to reply to any comments, unless I dislike them. J/K. Heh. Rory Disclaimer: I am not saying my attachment to the Catholic faith is superior to that of anybody in another religion. I am just in a moment of praise that comes irregularly. I do not compare likes and loves. But I think "like", after long years of meditation and life experience, may be properly expressed as love. Everyone's journey is unique. Perfect for a particular soul that God loves in a particular way. For me, it is because I have truly been such a bad Catholic, that I think I recognize now much more than ever, that my failure may have contributed to how and why my "like" has become love. I doubt I should tell how bad I am. That is between my good God and me. But that He loves us and no matter what we do, always pursues us? Drawing us to Himself. According to our particular purpose in His will. Until the moment of death, He will come. He is perfectly wise and wonderful, and tender, and everything...and He knows us better than we know ourselves. I have to shut up. I need to take the grandkids to school pretty soon! What a wonderful life. May we all be saved and have more time to talk on an even better day.

Nor did the wives have the option to marry each other or to marry another man. It is because polygyny is misogynistic. You do realize that you ascribing licentiousness and embedded infidelity as an assumed motive and purpose for poly/enm is exactly what the rest of the US did about plural marriage right? There is no real difference there. Also that is not what poly is “mostly about”. And saying that sincere religious beliefs somehow makes it better is just asinine and you know it. The Mormon fundamentalists, Islam, and the growing (but still small) return to polygyny by some Christians does not somehow make what they are doing morally better or purer. Divorce rates are down and still falling. Why are you screaming about the sky is falling? Pregnancy is down but the biggest decrease has been in teen pregnancies. What is the problem? Do you just have a need to blame the gays or the asexuals or the poly people or the furries or the childfree or whatever outside of the mainstream weirdos your culture war masters tell you are the problem this time? If marriage is falling apart most marriages are cishet ones. Why are you targeting the “freaks” who have minimal impact? This is an ongoing pattern for you. To quote President Uchtdorf: “STOP IT!”

Yes. I think that could happen. Not sure it will. I don't think so. Polygamy was very different from polycules. The wives were not married to each other. I have elsewhere explained my difficult in viewing marriage as divinely instituted (though in the end, I do believe it). One is mostly about licentiousness and and embedded infidelity, and the other was not. One is not based in sincere religious belief, and the other was. I see a number of differences. I think much has been done to deconstruct and damage marriage as an institution. Severing sex from marriage. Severing sex from children. Severing marriage from God. Severing marriage from children. Radically re-defining marriage. Thanks, -Smac

That's a fair question. I think the members of the Church genuinely believed that they were following God's law. Eventually they stopped, but only after much pressure and tribulation and - in my view - revelation. I think that can be a reasonable inference, but I'm not sure I can competently speak as to God's expectations on this matter. I think God commands us to do, or not do, certain things. Broadly and overwhelmingly, these things are congruent with the laws of the land. There can, of course, be exceptions. Like most Christian traditions, Latter-day Saint teaching can perhaps accommodate the idea that if a civil law directly conflicts with a clear command of God, God’s command takes precedence (classic biblical examples include Daniel, Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego, and the apostles in Acts 5:29, and then there are the "Jews in the Attic"-style questions). This principle was explicitly invoked during the polygamy period, when Church leaders and members argued that plural marriage was a divine commandment that superseded anti-bigamy statutes until the 1890 Manifesto discontinued the practice. To my knowledge, there is no other comparable episode in which the Church as an institution promulgated or practiced a general divine command for members to disobey civil law. So polygamy was very much an outlier, perhaps comparable to Abraham's Sacrifice. Why not? Isn't this situation a moral dilemma? Obey God or obey the law of the land? If secular law prohibits a moral thing (hiding Jews from the Nazis), or compels an immoral thing (disclosing the whereabouts of Jews to the Nazis), then people of good conscience have and can run into this sort of problem. The Fugitive Slave Act. Jim Crow. Apartheid. Some good historical examples of this. Apart from polygamy, I can't think of a time when this has happened to the Latter-day Saints. Happy to consider examples. I think folks like you and Mustard often impute motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold or harbor. I think disagreement is often construed as not "listening." I think nuanced answers and assessments are sometimes seen as evasive. Sometimes, though, the question suffers from the "complex question fallacy" (also known as the fallacy of many questions, plurium interrogationum, or a loaded question), which occurs when someone asks a question that builds in an unproven, disputed, or false assumption. A direct "yes" or "no" (or any straightforward reply) forces the respondent to inadvertently agree to the hidden claim. I think I try to answer directly and honestly and clearly in most circumstances. I have attempted that here. Thanks, -Smac