What Is The Solution?

[Hammer]

A firm conviction could be in error, Faith should remain fluid or a continueing hope of substance.

Whenever we think we have received all, our progress is halted.

I don't associate seeking God through a religious construct the only or best way to approach the pursuit of righteousness.

Certainly one can seek God while being a member of a church, but I think we need to be aware that the fruit of religion is not making this a better world, nor creating more godly people on a whole.

It may be slowing the degeneration, but in others ways it misses the mark, and can hold people back if they are relying on the teachings of man and not having a one on one relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.

Let our light so shine.

Yet isn't the religion made for man, not man for religion? It is a resource as is every truth in whatever form. I know that submission is a practice of growth. Within the church this is a stubbling block for many and a stepping stone for many.

Eve was given the first commandment of submission to man. It was not given lightly, but with serious consequences upon failure and great blessings upon success. It is an eternal principle which brings heavy consequences both good and evil according to adherance or lack there of.

Indeed, let our light so shine.

[Son]

Yet isn't the religion made for man, not man for religion? It is a resource as is every truth in whatever form. I know that submission is a practice of growth. Within the church this is a stubbling block for many and a stepping stone for many.

Eve was given the first commandment of submission to man. It was not given lightly, but with serious consequences upon failure and great blessings upon success. It is an eternal principle which brings heavy consequences both good and evil according to adherance or lack there of.

Indeed, let our light so shine.

As the OP is investigating prospects for common ground type of discourses regarding Members and Non Memebers. The dividing line it seems, are Religious practices, forms and expressions. There are those that do best under guidence from man, and we are given Mothers and Dads to raise and correct us, Authority figures, but we grow up and learn to stand. Relying on the greatest authority, our Heavenly Father. How does one learn His voice, if they are always looking to another.

You can be submissive to people and still not rely on them for your growth. This is done in work, home and everyday life.

If you speed and are given a ticket, you submit to that authority or go through a lot of hassles.

Knowing people by their fruits. Give us the best indicator of belief.

[wenglund]

Is it okay to believe something is true, when it is not, just because it provides you with peace and happiness?

I am not sure. Could you provide an example?

There is no amicable end for any side that claims to have access to knowledge that others do not, especially when it can not be verified by any reasonable means.

When I was in grade school and my older brother was in junior high, he claimed to have access to knowledge that I didn't have, and while I had no reasonable means of verifying this (except perhaps to take his word for it), we still got along amicably.

Since then, I have had amicable relations with numerous people who knew things that I didn't (spiritual and otherwise), or where I knew things that they didn't.

Is my experience unusual?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This is an interesting exercise in mediation, Wade. If you succeed here, then you might move on to Hamas / Fatah, and then to the mother of all mediation exercises, Palestinian / Israeli.

On the other hand, you may find that the divide is just too wide and too entrenched to conquer. Though there is some compromise that could be done by both sides, I think that such potential minor compromise is generally so dwarfed by the remaining conflict on basic issues as to be almost a non-starter. That divide on basic issues has been demonstrated in this thread.

Then again, being the typically arrogant, iron-rod, TBM that I evidently am, perhaps I'm being a bit too skeptical about my willingness to change just about every basic precept I hold dear in the Church as demanded. Floyd McElveen, in the late celebrated DVD love dropping, took this to the ultimate end when he demanded that the leaders of the Church admit that the whole foundation of the restored Church is a fraud.

The divide is wide, indeed.

I agree that for certain critics and apologists the divide is wide. Several years ago it was very wide between me and most critics (I believe I had the distinction of being one of the most disliked and perhaps even most hated apologists, if not THE most disliked apologist).

However, with my recent change in heart, mind, and approach, that gap has closed considerably, if not completely, with some critics (as witnessed by some of the recent amicable exchanges between us).

I don't know if I am ready to take on the Middle East yet, but at least I see things as looking up. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Son]

I am not sure. Could you provide an example?

When I was in grade school and my older brother was in junior high, he claimed to have access to knowledge that I didn't have, and while I had no reasonable means of verifying this (except perhaps to take his word for it), we still got along amicably.

Since then, I have had amicable relations with numerous people who knew things that I didn't (spiritual and otherwise), or where I knew things that they didn't.

Is my experience unusual?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Those that have a firm foundation have no reason to fear, and should be able to discuss any subject without anger. An open heart and contrite spirit are the soil prepared for the good seed.

[wenglund]

Wade, it isn't a "battle" or conflict between critics and apologists. Critics have problems with the Church, not the apologists.

As a critic, the only "animus" I have towards apologists is inversely proportional to the quality of their arguments in defense of the Church. Those who generally favor reasoned arguments and a courteous approach (Brant Gardner coming to mind, for one) don't bother me at all. Those who rely on shaky arguments and stretched evidence exasperate me (I won't name any names, because everyone already knows who they are except for themselves).

But I would never consider myself a critic of apologists, because I really don't care about them. Heck, apologists don't even represent the Church, so they're largely irrelevant at the end of the day.

I can certainly respect that some people may not think there is much if any animus between LDS critics and apologists, or even between members and former members. And, for such people, I think it perfectly reasonable that they not be concerned or feel obliged to contribute to discussions like this--at least not substinatively.

On the other hand, I see it somewhat differently. My impression is that there has long been considerable and growing animus between critics and apologist, as well as between members and former members, and for reasons other than differing opinions about which side tends to have the higher quality arguments or not. And, from what I have read from critics and apologist alike on various message boards, I am far from alone in that impression. So, for us, it makes sense that we would be concerned and feel obliged to earnestly participate in discussion such as this. I hope you can respect that.

To each their own. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[AKS]

While the thought sounds good, I don't think it could or should ever happen.

Have you ever been to a Temple Sealing? If you have, picture it in your mind. Picture the bride and groom. Picture the officiator. Picture the ceremony. Now, imagine if you were sitting next to someone who had never been in the Temple. What do you think their reaction would be? Would it be a positive experience? How would you feel, as you try to imagine what they are thinking, or if they make any comments or ask you any questions. While some might take the unique aspects of the ceremony in stride, for others, it could be very disturbing. The whole thing seems very normal and wonderful when the room is full of people who are all thrilled with the Temple, but if you add "outsiders", it would change everything.

That is why we must never, ever allow non-member relatives to attend Temple Sealings, no matter what the cost. It's for their own good.

I would support a limited-use recommend that would allow previously endowed people who no longer hold current recommends to attend, but that's different than having someone totally unfamiliar with the unique, sacred nature of the Temple attend.

I disagree. I understand your point, but I don't think it's necessarily true as long as the non-members are respectful. I have a friend who's daughter recently married an Indian. They had a traditional Indian wedding and my friend even participated (as he SHOULD as the father of the bride). I can assure you that the ceremony was strange from his point of view but he did not come back mocking the ritual, quite the opposite. He commented on how spiritual the experience was (and he's an atheist, btw). It seems to me that if the temple ceremony is truly sacred and if the non-member participants are truly respectful (maybe pre-ritual interview?) then everyone could be satisfied by attending.

[John Williams]

On the other hand, I see it somewhat differently. My impression is that there has long been considerable and growing animus between critics and apologist, as well as between members and former members, and for reasons other than differing opinions about which side tends to have the higher quality arguments or not. And, from what I have read from critics and apologist alike on various message boards, I am far from alone in that impression. So, for us, it makes sense that we would be concerned and feel obliged to earnestly participate in discussion such as this. I hope you can respect that.

To each their own. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I disagree, Wade. I don't think that animus is growing, necessarily. Maybe I just see things in terms of individual interactions, but I haven't noticed an increase or decrease in animosity over the years. The folks on a.r.m. 12 years ago were just as angry and combative as people are here and elsewhere now.

What I think probably contributes the most to the animosity is the exmos come over here when they're still smarting and hurt and want to argue about what they think is right. The apologists, on the other hand, come to the board believing they are right and are unsurprisingly offended when the angry exies attack their beliefs.

But have you noticed that, for the most part, the really angry ones either get banned or lose interest rather quickly? The people who have been here a long time don't seem to be particularly angry or hurt (well, with some notable exceptions, whom, as cinepro said, everyone will recognize except themselves). So maybe it is a function of getting over the hurt and the anger as an individual and no longer seeing ourselves necessarily as part of a monolithic group that has a "right" to be angry.

Maybe the pertinent questions are, Why am I angry? and What can I do to get past it?

[wenglund]

Those that have a firm foundation have no reason to fear, and should be able to discuss any subject without anger. An open heart and contrite spirit are the soil prepared for the good seed.

A stitch in time saves nine.

Fail to plan...then plan to fail.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

I agree that for certain critics and apologists the divide is wide. Several years ago it was very wide between me and most critics (I believe I had the distinction of being one of the most disliked and perhaps even most hated apologists, if not THE most disliked apologist).

However, with my recent change in heart, mind, and approach, that gap has closed considerably, if not completely, with some critics (as witnessed by some of the recent amicable exchanges between us).

The question then becomes whether there has to be agreement by everyone involved for real progress to be made. Just a few people can continue to keep the divide wide, and I see more than just a few people with basic, fundamental, irreconcilable differences on both sides.

The general EV response to the Blomberg / Robinson book was just about as enlightening as the book itself. After talking with several EVs about that, I wondered if among some people there is any desire at all to find common ground.

I don't want to be too negative about this - it's great when people agree amicably to disagree and leave it at that. I just see too many people in active tear down mode to think that society in general will not become increasingly polarized in the future.

Keep it up, though. It's good.

I am curious - what caused the change of heart?

[cinepro]

I can certainly respect that some people may not think there is much if any animus between LDS critics and apologists, or even between members and former members. And, for such people, I think it perfectly reasonable that they not be concerned or feel obliged to contribute to discussions like this--at least not substinatively.

On the other hand, I see it somewhat differently. My impression is that there has long been considerable and growing animus between critics and apologist, as well as between members and former members, and for reasons other than differing opinions about which side tends to have the higher quality arguments or not. And, from what I have read from critics and apologist alike on various message boards, I am far from alone in that impression. So, for us, it makes sense that we would be concerned and feel obliged to earnestly participate in discussion such as this. I hope you can respect that.

To each their own. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I wasn't saying there aren't any hard feelings between critics and apologists, or between members and former members. What I'm saying is that it's not the apologists that the critics have a problem with. So when you ask critics what solution they are looking for, you're going to hear about critical issues with the Church.

If I may venture an attempt at analogy, imagine this. You encounter a critic of the Bush administration, and you notice that they also have animus with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. When you ask the critic to explain their animus with Limbaugh and Hannity, they respond by explaining their primary complaints with the Bush administration. Now, you could try to focus your inquiry on the specific problems the critic has with conservative talk-show hosts, but to the critic, they are irrelevant. Conservative talk show hosts are self-appointed criers and defenders for the Bush administration, but they are not the problem.

If your focus is on the critic/apologist relationship, that's up to you, since this is your thread. But as a critic, I can say that from my perspective, you are barking up the wrong tree. Critics for the most part recognize the ultimate insignificance of self-appointed apologists in the Mormon scheme of things and their total impotence to enable change, and I suspect they engage in critic/apologist dialog only because the Church doesn't have an official capacity for such an exchange.

[wenglund]

I disagree, Wade. I don't think that animus is growing, necessarily. Maybe I just see things in terms of individual interactions, but I haven't noticed an increase or decrease in animosity over the years. The folks on a.r.m. 12 years ago were just as angry and combative as people are here and elsewhere now.

You may be right.

However, I was looking at it from my own apologetic experience, which began a decade or so prior to the advent of the internet. To me, my pre-internet interactions with critics seemed, for the most part, relatively absent of animus, particularly in comparison to what I have experienced on the net. But, that may just be because the venues may lend themselves differently to civil discourse (people may tend to be more civil in person than via cyber space, and/or the internet may bring more and diverse people together, and provide greater and more extensive public exposure for disputes, thereby increasing the chances of animus).

Besides, my point isn't so much that animus is growing, but that it is at a level that I believe warrants concern and doing something about it.

What I think probably contributes the most to the animosity is the exmos come over here when they're still smarting and hurt and want to argue about what they think is right. The apologists, on the other hand, come to the board believing they are right and are unsurprisingly offended when the angry exies attack their beliefs.

But have you noticed that, for the most part, the really angry ones either get banned or lose interest rather quickly? The people who have been here a long time don't seem to be particularly angry or hurt (well, with some notable exceptions, whom, as cinepro said, everyone will recognize except themselves). So maybe it is a function of getting over the hurt and the anger as an individual and no longer seeing ourselves necessarily as part of a monolithic group that has a "right" to be angry.

Maybe the pertinent questions are, Why am I angry? and What can I do to get past it?

For the most part I agree with you, and I think these are excellent questions to consider--though I would extend them beyond asking just about anger, and include other negative emotions as well. I mention this because during my belligerent days as an apologist, whether right or wrong, I didn't so much consider myself angry as I felt some measure of hurt and subsequent righteous indignation or at times contempt. And, it is not uncommon for either side to ask: "why are you so angry?" only to be told, "I'm not."

However, I wonder if this all is somewhat like the question: "which came first: the chicken or the egg?" Is the problem one of either party bringing pre-existing animus to the table, and therby interjecting animus into the discussion? Or, is it one of dysfunctional forms of discussion that result in and foment animus? Or, a combination of both?

I happen to think in most cases it is a combination of both, and so it may be prudent to make both a matter of concern and areas to look into for improvement.

My only hesitency in broaching the question of pre-existing negative emotions, is my experience in that regard on another board where you and I were participants, was less than encouraging to me, and in some ways may even be considered a dismal failure. But, that may have just been because the approach I used was possibly dysfunctional. Who knows? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[dancefan]

For the most part I agree with you, and I think these are excellent questions to consider--though I would extend them beyond asking just about anger, and include other negative emotions as well. I mention this because during my belligerent days as an apologist, whether right or wrong, I didn't so much consider myself angry as I felt some measure of hurt and subsequent righteous indignation or at times contempt. And, it is not uncommon for either side to ask: "why are you so angry?" only to be told, "I'm not."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think a lot of animus is at its core grief. Leaving the church also meant losing faith, community and a culture that people loved and through which they defined themselves. If I were a ex Mo I'd form my own church and keep whatever I loved most about the lds, either keep Christ (I would) or not (become more like the Universalists) and change the BOM and JS from inspired WOG and prophet to our traditional roots and go from there.

[wenglund]

The question then becomes whether there has to be agreement by everyone involved for real progress to be made. Just a few people can continue to keep the divide wide, and I see more than just a few people with basic, fundamental, irreconcilable differences on both sides.

I happen to believe that whatever progress is made, even on an individual basis, is beneficial and worth it.

The "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King may have only touched the heart of a few prejudiced people back in the day, but the seed of change that it planted has grown and blossomed over the last four decades to where King's dream may not be that far from coming true, if it hasn't been realized already.

The general EV response to the Blomberg / Robinson book was just about as enlightening as the book itself. After talking with several EVs about that, I wondered if among some people there is any desire at all to find common ground.

I can see how you may view it that way. However, for me, my interactions here with Rhinomelon, and my brief interactions with Blomberg and other EV's at various inter-faith conferences or via private emails, have given me a somewhat different outlook and hope for the future.

I don't want to be too negative about this - it's great when people agree amicably to disagree and leave it at that. I just see too many people in active tear down mode to think that society in general will not become increasingly polarized in the future.

Keep it up, though. It's good.

I greatly value the encouragement.

However, I am looking at this as being about more than just amicably disagreeing. I think it is possible to develop greater levels of understanding and respect for opposing points of view, but even more about finding areas of commonality that may unite us in bettering ourselves as a people and drawing closer together in loving and edifying relations. "I have a dream..." ;-)

I am curious - what caused the change of heart?

The impetus came from researching hate and bigotry, which prompted a moment of honest introspection where I finally realized that what I was doing wasn't working, but instead fomented the very thing I was hoping to quell. In other words, it came in response to me recognizing my own dysfunctions and dysfunctional approach, and through wisely thinking that it was in my best interest, if not also the best interest of others, to find a functional way of thinking and interacting with those with opposing views--which I believe I found not only in the restored gospel of love, but also in secular material like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Choice Theory, and proven mediation and conflict resolution strategies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Ray]

...I am looking at this as being about more than just amicably disagreeing. I think it is possible to develop greater levels of understanding and respect for opposing points of view, but even more about finding areas of commonality that may unite us in bettering ourselves as a people and drawing closer together in loving and edifying relations. "I have a dream..." ;-)

I think it would be really, really nice if both parties could simply amicably disagree.

You say you want more than that, and that's fine. I wouldn't suggest not working toward more.

But let's be content if that is all we get from each other.

And now, as for more, since we're already on the topic, the other things you would like are as follows:

Greater levels of understanding... of all the different issues involved, I suppose.

and

Respect for opposing points of view... I'm particularly interested in hearing about how you think that is even possible.

and

Finding areas of commonality that may unite us in bettering ourselves as a people and drawing closer together in loving and edifying relations... I'm all for that one because unity, at least in some areas, is also something I am personally interested in achieving.

"I have a dream..." ;-)

Yep, and I think it's a pretty good one... although I don't understand one aspect of it.

How can people respect a view they are personally opposed to?

I respect the right of other people to believe what they believe, regardless of what they believe, but I can't imagine how to respect a view that I personally disagree with while accepting what is in harmony with God's will.

[wenglund]

I wasn't saying there aren't any hard feelings between critics and apologists, or between members and former members. What I'm saying is that it's not the apologists that the critics have a problem with. So when you ask critics what solution they are looking for, you're going to hear about critical issues with the Church.

If I may venture an attempt at analogy, imagine this. You encounter a critic of the Bush administration, and you notice that they also have animus with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. When you ask the critic to explain their animus with Limbaugh and Hannity, they respond by explaining their primary complaints with the Bush administration. Now, you could try to focus your inquiry on the specific problems the critic has with conservative talk-show hosts, but to the critic, they are irrelevant. They are self-appointed criers and defenders for the Bush administration, but they are not the problem.

If your focus is on the critic/apologist relationship, that's up to you, since his is your thread. But as a critic, I can say that from my perspective, you are barking up the wrong tree. Critics for the most part recognize the ultimate insignificance of self-appointed apologists in the Mormon scheme of things and their total impotence to enable change, and I suspect they engage in critic/apologist dialog only because the Church doesn't have an official capacity for such an exchange.

That is a good point, and your analogy was very helpful in enabling me to see it. And, now that I understand it, I am pleased to expand the discussion to include it.

So, for you and perhaps other critics, your animus isn't so much towards apologists, but towards the Church. And, your proposed solution for resolving the animus is for the Church to make specific changes (as per your list)ithat are amicable to the critics, though you don't believe there is any official capacity for exchanging that solution and enabling change. Is that right?

If so, are you open to alternative points of view and alternative solutions?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

That is a good point, and your analogy was very helpful in enabling me to see it. And, now that I understand it, I am pleased to expand the discussion to include it.

So, for you and perhaps other critics, your animus isn't so much towards apologists, but towards the Church. And, your proposed solution for resolving the animus is for the Church to make specific changes (as per your list)ithat are amicable to the critics, though you don't believe there is any official capacity for exchanging that solution and enabling change. Is that right?

If so, are you open to alternative points of view and alternative solutions?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Upon further reflection, you'll probably find me an unsuitable focus for inquiry. I posted my list of things I would like to see changed (but don't think will) in the Church, but when it comes down to it, I really don't have any "animus" towards the Church (or apologists).

I still go to Church (all three hours, every week), I enjoy serving in my callings, I pay tithing, keep the word of wisdom, I love my ward, read scriptures with the family a couple times a week, hold family prayer 2x a day.

I don't have a problem with any of these things, and have no desire to change any of it. There are many things that people in the Church consider "true" that I don't, but that doesn't really bother me either. I keep my mouth shut during Gospel Doctrine class, and usually just tell funny, faith-promoting stories in Elder's Quorum (by the way, did anyone notice that the SWK lesson manual has the lesson on Financial Responsibility as Chapter 11? Get it, Chapter 11! Who says those manual writers don't have a sense of humor!)

I don't wish the Church would start teaching a warts-and-all history on Sundays. I don't care if it continues to insist in a literal belief in Noah's ark or the Book of Mormon, or that Jesus is coming back. As long as the Church continues to provide a positive framework for my kids to grow up and my family to grow together, I'm good. And 100% animus-free.

[wenglund]

How can people respect a view they are personally opposed to?

I respect the right of other people to believe what they believe, regardless of what they believe, but I can't imagine how to respect a view that I personally disagree with while accepting what is in harmony with God's will.

This is an excellent question, and well deserving of further consideration.

I suspect, though, that the word "respect" can mean different things to different people in different contexts, and so I can't really speak authoritatively for anyone but myself.

For me, in the context of opposing views, I understand respect to not only mean respecting the right of other people to believe what they believe (as you said), and respecting their right to declare, without distracting interruptions or premature dismissals, their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas, but also respect their belief enough, and where practical, to give it thoughtful consideration and attempt to understand it as fully and as accurately as possible, as well as respecting that from their point of view, their beliefs are, for the most part, reasonable and rational--though I may see things quite differently.

In short, it is treating the opposing beliefs of others in the same manner that I would wish my beliefs to be treated.

This does not mean that while I honor the sanctity of the human body, that I am obliged to respect, in every sense, the brutal actions of a rapist. Not at all. In fact, I believe respect for humanity in general would cause me to feel outraged and indignent about such actions.

But, that is an extreme case dealing with extreme actions, and what I am proposing has more to do with garden variety ideas and differences of opinions.

At least that is the way I look at it. Others may see it differently, and I will respect that. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think a lot of animus is at its core grief. Leaving the church also meant losing faith, community and a culture that people loved and through which thy defined themselves. If I were a ex Mo I'd form my own church and keep whatever I loved most about the lds, either keep Christ (I would) or not (become more like the Universalists) and change the BOM and JS from inspired WOG and prophet to our traditional roots and go from there.

Grief does seem to be a common theme among many who have lost faith as well as among many of the still faithful whose loved-ones have lost faith (it goes both ways).

And, as with many walks of life, different people have differing ways for experiencing and expressing their grief--some of which may entail animus, and some not.

Is there anything edifying that can or should be done when this pre-existing emotion (i.e. grief that turns to animus) is brought to the critic/apologist discussion table by either side?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Upon further reflection, you'll probably find me an unsuitable focus for inquiry. I posted my list of things I would like to see changed (but don't think will) in the Church, but when it comes down to it, I really don't have any "animus" towards the Church (or apologists).

I still go to Church (all three hours, every week), I enjoy serving in my callings, I pay tithing, keep the word of wisdom, I love my ward, read scriptures with the family a couple times a week, hold family prayer 2x a day.

I don't have a problem with any of these things, and have no desire to change any of it. There are many things that people in the Church consider "true" that I don't, but that doesn't really bother me either. I keep my mouth shut during Gospel Doctrine class, and usually just tell funny, faith-promoting stories in Elder's Quorum (by the way, did anyone notice that the SWK lesson manual has the lesson on Financial Responsibility as Chapter 11? Get it, Chapter 11! Who says those manual writers don't have a sense of humor!)

I don't wish the Church would start teaching a warts-and-all history on Sundays. I don't care if it continues to insist in a literal belief in Noah's ark or the Book of Mormon, or that Jesus is coming back. As long as the Church continues to provide a positive framework for my kids to grow up and my family to grow together, I'm good. And 100% animus-free.

This is great to hear!

However, I am not sure you wouldn't be the perfect focus here. You have apparently found a very amicable resolution, and one that many of us may learn and benefit from--assuming you may wish to share your thoughts on how you managed this.

And, no, I didn't notice that about the EQ manual (which may tell you just how carefully I may have examined it), but I find it humorous nevertheless. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Ray]

In short, it is treating the opposing beliefs of others in the same manner that I would wish my beliefs to be treated.

What do you mean by the "same manner"?

I reject beliefs that are in opposition to my beliefs, and I accept those in harmony.

I wish people would accept my beliefs that are in harmony with God's beliefs, and I wish people would reject beliefs that are not in harmony with God's beliefs.

What are you referring to when you say the "same manner"?

I'm now trying to achieve a "greater level of understanding" and "unity" with you, as much as possible.

This does not mean that while I honor the sanctity of the human body, that I am obliged to respect, in every sense, the brutal actions of a rapist. Not at all. In fact, I believe respect for humanity in general would cause me to feel outraged and indignent about such actions.

Not necessarily, at least not from my own point of view.

I think many people simply do not know any better, and I have sympathy for them.

But, that is an extreme case dealing with extreme actions, and what I am proposing has more to do with garden variety ideas and differences of opinions.

I don't see any good reason for anyone to be angry with anyone for any reason at all, whatever.

I even have problems understanding the idea of God being angry with people.

Evil people should simply get what they deserve. Why be angry with them?

At least that is the way I look at it. Others may see it differently, and I will respect that. ;-)

I can only respect your right to believe what you believe on this issue, at this point.

[wenglund]

What do you mean by the "same manner"?

I listed specific "manners" in my previous post.

I reject beliefs that are in opposition to my beliefs, and I accept those in harmony.

I wish people would accept my beliefs that are in harmony with God's beliefs, and I wish people would reject beliefs that are not in harmony with God's beliefs.

This may touch at the very core of our different ways of looking at this. Given the context previously mentioned, I don't view "respect" in terms of rejecting or accepting ideas (whatever those terms may be interpreted to mean), or even in terms of who may be wrong or right (either side, by the very nature of opposition, will have opposing views about this), but rather in terms of how the ideas might best be treated (as previously specified) so as to enhance mutual edification and encourage further edifying discussions.

Does that help you to better understand my use of the Golden Rule as a means of "respect"--not that you may agree with it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Ray]

I listed specific "manners" in my previous post.

Are you referring to the idea that people should consider what other people are saying?

I have already considered what you said as much as I consider my own thoughts or any thoughts, and I am now discussing this for the purpose of understanding and coming into unity with you, if possible.

Do you read where I said something like that in my previous post?

This may touch at the very core of our different ways of looking at this. Given the context previously mentioned, I don't view "respect" in terms of rejecting or accepting ideas (whatever those terms may be interpreted to mean), or even in terms of who may be wrong or right (either side, by the very nature of opposition, will have opposing views about this), but rather in terms of how the ideas might best be treated (as previously specified) so as to enhance mutual edification and encourage further edifying discussions.

I read what I hightlighted in bold text, and I have also considered those thoughts as my own thoughts.

What are you referring to when you refer to "how the ideas might best be treated so as to enhance mutual edification and encourage further edifying discussions" if not how to either accept or reject the ideas that were raised during the discussions?

After coming to an understanding of the ideas people share, people either accept or reject the ideas.

... right?

... or is that not right, in your opinion?

If you have any other thoughts, NOW would be a good time to share them.

Does that help you to better understand my use of the Golden Rule as a means of "respect"--not that you may agree with it?

No, not really.

The Golden Rule involves the principle of doing unto others as we would like others to do unto us.

I would like others to accept the ideas that I have accepted as I have accepted them, so what exactly do you think I should do with the ideas of other people?

I will not accept any ideas that I do not agree with.

... but I will be nice about it and let you believe what you want to believe.

[wenglund]

After coming to an understanding of the ideas people share, people either accept or reject the ideas.

... right?

Yes, and they may even accept or reject the arguments all along (if accepting or rejecting is what they are looking to do).

Whatever the case, people may reject opposing arguments in ways that are either respectful or disrespectful.

From what I have mentioned previously, can you figure out what I might think a respectful rejection of an argument might look like (assuming one feels the need to reject an argument)? If so, then you may understand me well enough, even if you reject my way of looking at this. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Ray]

From what I have mentioned previously, can you figure out what I might think a respectful rejection of an argument might look like (assuming one feels the need to reject an argument)? If so, then you may understand me well enough, even if you reject my way of looking at this. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I think I can figure out what you might think a respectul rejection might look like.

I think you're saying a person respectfully rejects a belief by simply being nice while rejecting it.

... with the understanding that the belief has already been considered and is perfectly understood.

Is that right?

I respectfully agree with that argument... if that is in fact what you are saying.