In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[rodheadlee]

Can you clarify this?

To repeat myself I said:

I was rather amused when I stumbled upon this website and aghast when I discovered how many were letting themselves be led astray from His church by the precepts of men.

I had no idea there was an Internet war going on, for the past 3 years we were busy sailing from country to country, meeting people of other cultures and more importantly communing with our Father in Heaven, testing our faith in the real world, not VR. I hear the voice of the Lord very clearly when I'm alone on watch at sea, everything else is just whitenoise. These conversations are very holy to me and for me to discount them due to a scholarly discussion on how many Cumorahs there are would be for me to deny the Holy Spirit. I could not believe people were giving up what I want so bad (an Eternal Family) due to words on the internet, due to artifacts not yet found, due to languages not yet discovered or not yet understood. My own sins keep me from my goal, not the location of the Nephite civilization.

[beastie]

Cal,

You

[Calm]

I hear the voice of the Lord very clearly when I'm alone on watch at sea, everything else is just whitenoise.

This would be my dream life except for the very minor fact I get massively seasick just watching boats go up and down, let alone when I get on one (though I can handle a cruise size one on the Vogel river, anything smaller or wavier is dangerous....another thing to add to my list of "it'll have to wait until the CK or my next reincarnation, whichever theology proves true .

[beastie]

I had no idea there was an Internet war going on, for the past 3 years we were busy sailing from country to country, meeting people of other cultures and more importantly communing with our Father in Heaven, testing our faith in the real world, not VR. I hear the voice of the Lord very clearly when I'm alone on watch at sea, everything else is just whitenoise. These conversations are very holy to me and for me to discount them due to a scholarly discussion on how many Cumorahs there are would be for me to deny the Holy Spirit. I could not believe people were giving up what I want so bad (an Eternal Family) due to words on the internet, due to artifacts not yet found, due to languages not yet discovered or not yet understood. My own sins keep me from my goal, not the location of the Nephite civilization.

I see. Thanks for the clarification. The church does make very specific truth claims outside the claims of basic Christianity, and some people think that there ought to be more evidence for those claims than they can find. But I understand that not everyone has that approach to God and faith. Some people adhere more to what I understand to be fideism

[Calm]

I think it

[beastie]

Cal -

You really don't look at the "rumor mill of Dan's stalker" with contempt, and think it unworthy of notice?

At any rate, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

[Calm]

Cal -

You really don't look at the "rumor mill of Dan's stalker" with contempt, and think it unworthy of notice?

It would be silly to think of it as unworthy of notice and then notice it. I think it's worthy of notice for its entertainment value, especially Dan's edited version where I don't have to worry about vulgarities and such (which I do find distasteful)....if I ever decide to take it seriously, I will of course grit my teeth and go read it in its original state.

As to contempt, before I take that potentially soul damaging step (at least that's how I view it considering what the Lord has said about judgment in the scriptures), I have to know someone's motivations and background to a greater extent than is possible over the internet, especially with an anonymous identity. There are probably quite a few other emotional reactions I'd be willing to engage in, but "contempt" is not one of them. At least not in my sane moments.

At any rate, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

No problem. It's been great distraction as I said above (I think....).

[beastie]

Well, I wish I could think of something else to say to distract you, but I think I'm all out.

Oh, I got something. You may remember the son I was so worried about when we were mods together on Z? Well, he turned out fine and is giving me my first grandchild any day now. I picked the nickname "shug" (short for the southern nickname for grandmother, "sugar") instead of grandma. What do you think?

Ok, you can tell my mind is no longer on this. Time to hunt for more baby books.

[Calm]

Well, I wish I could think of something else to say to distract you, but I think I'm all out.

I think that aspect of the conversation has indeed been nitpicked not only to death, but to nonexistence.

[mfbukowski]

Are you seriously suggesting that Scott's pejorative description of folk mormons did not demonstrate antipathy towards that group? He called them lazy, ingorant, and intransigent.

And of course, because you do not include the numerical post reference, without reading the entire thread over again, we cannot check to see if in fact he said this, or if you are distorting.

Smart move. This is significant, and I will keep reminding you. Oh yes. Though the function is available on this board you won't use it because it uses more bandwidth. How noble! It probably leaves more of a carbon footprint too in some way you will figure out.

This is really frustrating.

I suggest all responses to beastie should also have no references so she can see how frustrating it becomes. We give her ammunition to respond, but she gives us none.

[rodheadlee]

I see. Thanks for the clarification. The church does make very specific truth claims outside the claims of basic Christianity, and some people think that there ought to be more evidence for those claims than they can find. But I understand that not everyone has that approach to God and faith. Some people adhere more to what I understand to be fideism

[beastie]

And of course, because you do not include the numerical post reference, without reading the entire thread over again, we cannot check to see if in fact he said this, or if you are distorting.

Smart move. This is significant, and I will keep reminding you. Oh yes. Though the function is available on this board you won't use it because it uses more bandwidth. How noble! It probably leaves more of a carbon footprint too in some way you will figure out.

This is really frustrating.

I suggest all responses to beastie should also have no references so she can see how frustrating it becomes. We give her ammunition to respond, but she gives us none.

I provided the link to Scott's dichotomy not once, but twice. Twice.

[Calm]

This is really frustrating.

I admit this was very frustrating for me to deal with today, though since it took up more time to track down comments this was a plus...today at least.

I think most days I would have ended the conversation a bit earlier for all our sakes.

I suggest all responses to beastie should also have no references so she can see how frustrating it becomes. We give her ammunition to respond, but she gives us none.

How about just asking her nicely to use the "reply" function on the post she is responding to and not at the end of a thread and just keep the full name, date, timestamp, and post info intact in the future? (Not sure if you asked her or only pointed out the lack of it before).

[beastie]

I admit this was very frustrating for me to deal with today, though since it took up more time to track down comments this was a plus...today at least.

I think most days I would have ended the conversation a bit earlier for all our sakes.

How about just asking her nicely to use the "reply" function on the post she is responding to and not at the end of a thread and just keep the full name, date, timestamp, and post info intact in the future? (Not sure if you asked her or only pointed out the lack of it before).

Why, thank you, cal.

I admit I'm at a lost as to why this creates a huge problem. Most of the time I've been responding to posts very near to mine.

But, no doubt MF thinks this creates a case for my dishonesty. Sigh.

[Calm]

I provided the link to Scott's dichotomy not once, but twice. Twice.

For other cases, I have found using the multiquote function much easier if I want to respond to multiple posts at one time than just trying to keep track of who said what. It even works for multiple pages.

[Calm]

I admit I'm at a lost as to why this creates a huge problem. Most of the time I've been responding to posts very near to mine.

I don't know about anyone else, but I get frustrated anytime I have to think about doing something technical as it interprets the intellectual or inspired flow.

Big thing it does is help me keep track of what I've responded to and what I have not, as just clicking back and forth will be less likely to cause me to lose my place than having to scan up and down even short distances.

[beastie]

For other cases, I have found using the multiquote function much easier than just trying to keep track of who said what. It even works for multiple pages.

Thanks for the tip. I've had problems on other boards with the "reply to the exact post" function because it limits the number of internal quotes you can add, if that makes sense. That's why I got into the habit of simply clicking reply at the end of the thread.

I don't understand what the multiquote function is, btw.

[beastie]

I don't know about anyone else, but I get frustrated anytime I have to think about doing something technical as it interprets the intellectual or inspired flow.

Big thing it does is help me keep track of what I've responded to and what I have not, as just clicking back and forth will be less likely to cause me to lose my place than having to scan up and down even short distances.

This is exactly the case with me. I'm not very tech-savvy. It takes me a while to get used to any board's format, and I tend just to stick with what I know to do, versus getting confused by something new.

[rodheadlee]

This would be my dream life except for the very minor fact I get massively seasick just watching boats go up and down, let alone when I get on one (though I can handle a cruise size one on the Vogel river, anything smaller or wavier is dangerous....another thing to add to my list of "it'll have to wait until the CK or my next reincarnation, whichever theology proves true .

The patch works well for seasickness on some folks. I don't get seasick but some of my friends do and the patch works for them.

[Calm]

My faith would be dependant on experience and reason. I experienced a squall stopping dead in it's tracks and letting my little vessel safely cross it's path before it continued on it's course. I deny that faith is hostile to reason (fideism). I have reasoned my faith with the Lord, not with scholars. The reason the squall stopped in it's tracks was of course my prayer, my faith that He heard my cry and acted on my behalf. Sometimes the answer is no, we must weather the storm, and sometimes I get the reason why we must weather the storm. Sometimes we are not yet ready for the reason why.

I admit this was very frustrating for me to deal with today, though since it took up more time to track down comments this was a plus...today at least.

I think most days I would have ended the conversation a bit earlier for all our sakes.

How about just asking her nicely to use the "reply" function on the post she is responding to and not at the end of a thread and just keep the full name, date, timestamp, and post info intact in the future? (Not sure if you asked her or only pointed out the lack of it before).

For other cases, I have found using the multiquote function much easier if I want to respond to multiple posts at one time than just trying to keep track of who said what. It even works for multiple pages.

Thanks for the tip. I've had problems on other boards with the "reply to the exact post" function because it limits the number of internal quotes you can add, if that makes sense. That's why I got into the habit of simply clicking reply at the end of the thread.

I don't understand what the multiquote function is, btw.

The multiquote button is next to the reply button on each individual post. Click all you want to include in a response and then click on "add reply" at the bottom of the thread (before the quick post box). This adds all the clicked on posts to your response as I have done in this post taking every other post on this page till this one. You do need to be careful to not go over the limit, but that can be avoided by first constructing your response and then if you think it goes over (20 quotes? or is it less now), you can cut and paste half of it into another post with all the backstep (or whatever the little arrows by the posts mean) still intact.

You can also use cut and paste to rearrange them if they are not in the order you want pretty easily.

[Calm]

The patch works well for seasickness on some folks. I don't get seasick but some of my friends do and the patch works for them.

Alas, I can't take antihistamines.

[beastie]

This is exactly the case with me. I'm not very tech-savvy. It takes me a while to get used to any board's format, and I tend just to stick with what I know to do, versus getting confused by something new.

The patch works well for seasickness on some folks. I don't get seasick but some of my friends do and the patch works for them.

Alas, I can't take antihistamines.

Wow, I actually get it. Thanks for the tip, I'll do my best to remember from now on. I assure MF that the manner of my posting was due solely to my incompetence and not to a desire to confuse or obfuscate.

[Calm]

Wow, I actually get it. Thanks for the tip, I'll do my best to remember from now on. I assure MF that the manner of my posting was due solely to my incompetence and not to a desire to confuse or obfuscate.

It took me awhile to figure it out. Good that someone else can benefit (and look we came up with another topic to distract me....you should have taken longer to "get it" though....perhaps I am too good at explanations, at least as far as pushing buttons are concerned.)

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps this line is the clue to our inability to communicate.

Not at all.

If you will notice, in the LDS church, doctrine is made by the prophet, in conference, sustained by the priesthood quorums, as was the change in the priesthood for worthy black men.

It is not made by secretaries in form letters or faxes in response to a private communication to a bishop or a scholar.

[beastie]

And of course, because you do not include the numerical post reference, without reading the entire thread over again, we cannot check to see if in fact he said this, or if you are distorting.

Smart move. This is significant, and I will keep reminding you. Oh yes. Though the function is available on this board you won't use it because it uses more bandwidth. How noble! It probably leaves more of a carbon footprint too in some way you will figure out.

This is really frustrating.

I suggest all responses to beastie should also have no references so she can see how frustrating it becomes. We give her ammunition to respond, but she gives us none.

Now that I've learned the trick, perhaps this will help. Scott's dichotomy did not originate on this thread. He created a thread to explain it here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/46466-a-new-dichotomy-for-your-consideration/page__hl__dichotomy

so if you want to verify that I haven't falsified his quote, you'll have to check there.

Here is his OP

Two recent threads, the one on Chapel vs. Internet Mormonism and the other on LDS urban legends has prompted a fusion in my thinking. As a result, I have a new dichotomy to propose that perhaps, is not bogus like Chapel vs. Internet. It is this:

On the one hand, we have Mormons who seek to learn and understand the authoritative doctrines, policies and positions of the Church so as to use them as guidelines for their own faith, belief, worship. For the purpose of discussion, I shall call them orthodox Mormons.

On the other hand, we have Mormons who, for whatever reason -- laziness, intellectual neglect, intransigence, invincible ignorance, whatever -- cling to folk doctrine as though it were scripture. I shall call them folk Mormons.

To illustrate how this breaks down, here are a couple of applications:

A folk Mormon is convinced that all faithful Church members one day will be called upon to walk en masse to Jackson County, Mo., there to build the temple of the New Jerusalem.

An orthodox Mormon understands that the above notion is a tradition handed down from the early Utah period of Church history, when some Church members were convinced the Second Coming would occur within their lifetimes and they would have the opportunity to go reclaim their Missouri lands.

A folk Mormon is wedded to a traditional understanding about Book of Mormon geography (i.e. hemispheric or North American model) to the point of calling into question the faithfulness and loyalty of those who are not.

An orthodox Mormon knows that the Church takes no official position about locales for specific Book of Mormon events and thus understands that Latter-day Saints are not bound to accept one particular model over another.

A folk Mormon is prone to gospel hobbyism at the expense of a wholesome balance in scriptural and doctrinal scholarship.

An orthodox Mormon lives "by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God."

Critics who are prone to attack strawmen are likely to focus on the folk-doctrine beliefs of folk Mormons as an excuse to beat up the Church, because such beliefs are often easy targets. They express frustration and resistance when told that such beliefs are not authoritative.

The categories (orthodox vs. folk Mormon) are archetypal, and I don't insist that a person must be either one or the other. A generally orthodox Mormon could have folk Mormon elements in his attitude.

And I'm not yet saying this model is valid; I'm only thinking out loud here. It might be altogether unworkable, just as Internet vs. Chapel is.

Your thoughts?

I bolded the parts I found particularly offensive, hence, my "poking" at him by using the terms he helpfully provided.