why me Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 These are great points, however, I would add that from my perspective, we as believers hold the greater responsibility to respond to critics with kindness. Many critics posting in these forums are former believers, experiencing considerable pain. They feel hurt over the fact that they believe they have been deceived, and that they have wasted major portions of their lives living a lie. Many of them feel pain over the fact that their disbelief has caused problems in their relationships with spouses, parents, friends, children, etc. Some have experienced painful divorces and loss of jobs.This still does not give them the right to call certain apologists names and bash them. I remember when I was posting on the postmo forum. The personal attacks against me were a dime a dozen. Of course this was several years ago but still I haven't forgotten them. Likewise on the catholic forum when former lds attacked the lds church and its leaders. And some lds posters who were defending the lds church. Being hurt does not give someone the right to hurt someone else. On the internet we can have an understanding that we are not dealing with people and so, the attacks can come. It is a problem not just for us but for many others who are posting on the Internet for various other reasons outside of mormonism.
mercyngrace Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 This is a good point. But I see no condemnation of the critics actions on this thread. And yet, the critics on various boards should come under scruntiny. Until someone has been personally attacked by the critics, it is difficult to understand just why some apologists respond the way they do. I firmly believe that apologists can be kind and should be kind. But when an apologist haa been personally attacked for a long time, kindness directed to the posters who post personal attacks may just be in short supply and understandably so.It may seem unfair, but there is a different level of expectation. The critics aren't representing the church or Christ when they speak. For better or worse, the apologists are.
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 The critics aren't representing the church or Christ when they speak. For better or worse, the apologists are.I am just going to make this my only response to this specifically because it is a big issue for the board. Critics use this line of thinking all the time to shut out defenders. By using this do you intend to shut out other defenders publicly? Food for thought.Nemesis
mercyngrace Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I am just going to make this my only response to this specifically because it is a big issue for the board. Critics use this line of thinking all the time to shut out defenders. By using this do you intend to shut out other defenders publicly? Food for thought.NemesisJust because critics use this line of thinking doesn't mean it's wrong. By suggesting that critics use this line of thinking, do you intend to shut out those who think we should live our standards?As members of the church, we made covenants to stand as witnesses. Is this board a place where we check those covenants at the door?Wasn't it the mods who asked for "gentlemanly discussion"?Edit: It's bad enough when we fail to live or standards out of our own stupidity and weakness but calling others out as apostates, and berating others as a matter of habit, all while pounding our chests as defenders of the faith, is the height of hypocrisy. It's exactly what the Savior condemned and I think it is what motivated David's OP.
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Just because critics use this line of thinking doesn't mean it's wrong. By suggesting that critics use this line of thinking, do you intend to shut out those who think we should live our standards?As members of the church, we made covenants to stand as witnesses. Is this board a place where we check those covenants at the door?Wasn't it the mods who asked for "gentlemanly discussion"?Discussion yes, but to hold LDS to a different standard is not the intention of this board at all and never will be. This board removes this specific handicap, its what has made this board successful and the critics that don't tow this line of thinking are successful here and we appreciate them. Nemesis
frankenstein Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 When one has been attacked personally for a couple of years and the attacks continue, it kind be rather difficult to be kind. Actions get reactions. And when kindness begets mocking and personal attacks, what is one to do?Turn the other cheek, and when you face Herod say nothing at all.
mercyngrace Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Discussion yes, but to hold LDS to a different standard is not the intention of this board at all and never will be. This board removes this specific handicap, its what has made this board successful and the critics that don't tow this line of thinking are successful here and we appreciate them. NemesisIf the handicap is removed, then what excuse do apologists have for communicating in an unChrist-like manner?
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 It's bad enough when we fail to live or standards out of our own stupidity and weakness but calling others out as apostates, and berating others as a matter of habit, all while pounding our chests as defenders of the faith, is the height of hypocrisy The savior also took a whip to drive out the merchants. I think there is a time and place for everything. This is why we ask for you to use the report button. Some people have created a habit of stirring the pot here just to get a certain reaction then go an gloat on a board set up to deride your religion and fellow saints. Wouldn't supporting them be just as hypocritical?Nemesis
mercyngrace Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 The savior also took a whip to drive out the merchants. I think there is a time and place for everything. This is why we ask for you to use the report button. Some people have created a habit of stirring the pot here just to get a certain reaction then go an gloat on a board set up to deride your religion and fellow saints. Wouldn't supporting them be just as hypocritical?NemesisYes. Can you show me where I supported that behavior?
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 If the handicap is removed, then what excuse do apologists have for communicating in an unChrist-like manner?Because critics and fellow saints continually try to use this specific weapon against fellow saints. Nemesis
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Yes. Can you show me where I supported that behavior?Who says you did? There is a bigger picture to all this.Nemesis
mercyngrace Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Because critics and fellow saints continually try to use this specific weapon against fellow saints. NemesisJust to be clear, are you saying that the behavior will be tolerated by apologists but not by critics?Who says you did? There is a bigger picture to all this.NemesisOkay. Just making sure there wasn't a misunderstanding.
frankenstein Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 The Saviour used force to clean out the Temple, essentially heaven on Earth. This place is hardly a comparison to clearing the Temple. Violation of board guidelines is quite different and apart from using the House of The Lord as a place of business.Some people have created a habit of stirring the pot here just to get a certain reaction then go an gloat on a board set up to deride your religion and fellow saints. Wouldn't supporting them be just as hypocritical?That is a very dangerous line of reasoning. What it appears to me you are suggesting, that a pot stirrer who goes elsewhere and gloats should be banned simply because they gloat, even if that person is within this boards guidelines.
Analytics Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Discussion yes, but to hold LDS to a different standard is not the intention of this board at all and never will be. This board removes this specific handicap, its what has made this board successful and the critics that don't tow this line of thinking are successful here and we appreciate them. NemesisI'll just state for the record that I have no problem with the rules here. I hold myself to a higher standard than the standard to which I hold apologists, and I have no problem if you guys hold me to a higher standards as well.
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Just to be clear, are you saying that the behavior will be tolerated by apologists but not by critics? I am making no declaration of any kind.It may seem unfair, but there is a different level of expectation. The critics aren't representing the church or Christ when they speak. For better or worse, the apologists are. I am only addressing this and the reasons why it doesn't work on this board.Nemesis
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 The Saviour used force to clean out the Temple, essentially heaven on Earth. This place is hardly a comparison to clearing the Temple. Violation of board guidelines is quite different and apart from using the House of The Lord as a place of business.I think you are not seeing the point. In fact I stated the intention of the point in the very next sentence.Nemesis
mercyngrace Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I am making no declaration of any kind.I am only addressing this and the reasons why it doesn't work on this board.NemesisFair enough. I appreciate your willingness to respond to my questions.
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I'll just state for the record that I have no problem with the rules here. I hold myself to a higher standard than the standard to which I hold apologists, and I have no problem if you guys hold me to a higher standards as well.A good critic will argue the facts not whether the church is true. Nemesis
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Fair enough. I appreciate your willingness to respond to my questions.No problem.Nemesis
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 That is a very dangerous line of reasoning. I see no danger in protecting the board. Nemesis
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 It's not William Shatner? I guess you missed the discussion about this about 3 weeks ago. I swore it was William Shatner in some star trek show. I was way mistaken.
Deborah Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I guess you missed the discussion about this about 3 weeks ago. I swore it was William Shatner in some star trek show. I was way mistaken.He tells you who it is in the name "Night Stalker." It's the great Darren McGavin. The 1970's version not the new one which wasn't very good.
mercyngrace Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 A good critic will argue the facts not whether the church is true. NemesisAgain for clarity, who gets to define "critic"? And what exactly is the definition?Can an apologist (or a faithful member) acknowledge issues within the church as an institution, its history, or its doctrines and still be considered a fathful member? Or at that point do you beome a critic in the eyes of the board?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 He tells you who it is in the name "Night Stalker." It's the great Darren McGavin. The 1970's version not the new one which wasn't very good.Yeah, I know, I just did not know what "night stalker" meant until 3 weeks ago. It is Ralphie's dad in "A Christams Story". I guess I though Consig was just trying to be silly with his title.Keep in mind I had never even heard of this show until 3 weeks ago.
Nemesis Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Again for clarity, who gets to define "critic"? And what exactly is the definition?Sure but first you have to agree to a definition of what I am. I have been accused of being a David Bokovoy sympathizer, William Shryvver sympathizer, Consig simpathizer, Apostate sympathizer and the list can go on. Can an apologist (or a faithful member) acknowledge issues within the church as an institution, its history, or its doctrines and still be considered a fathful member? Or at that point do you beome a critic in the eyes of the board?I will say this as I have said it before, the true beauty of the church is that allows for a wide variety of opinions and interpretations, even at general conference you are told to recieve your own revelation of the truthfulness of the words spoken. Nemesis
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.