Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

Posted

diglot:

You came here expecting to tell mormons what they believe, instead of learning what we believe. You are merely confirming your own predelection. The very defintion of self fulfilling prophecy.

Posted (edited)

diglot:

You came here expecting to tell mormons what they believe, instead of learning what we believe. You are merely confirming your own predelection. The very defintion of self fulfilling prophecy.

Where have I done so? Where have I told Mormons what they believe? Give me specific examples.

Actually, don't bother. I don't think I'm going to bother posting here again.

People like you, jskains, and a couple of others, make this place insufferable. You guys are what makes CARM such a horrid place. The only difference being that this place also has many members who are very nice and polite, plus they don't make wild accusations against me without providing evidence.

So, peace out. Hopefully you will get rid of the chip on your shoulder and stop having kneejerk reactions towards every non-Mormon who visits here.

Edited by diglot
Posted

Roll your eyes all that you want, but it aint going to change the fact that Mormons can approach church history with as much bias and misunderstanding as mainstream Christians.

That is a fact? I would love for you to demonstrate this. Have fun.

Posted

Where have I done so? Where have I told Mormons what they believe? Give me specific examples.

Actually, don't bother. I don't think I'm going to bother posting here again.

People like you, jskains, and a couple of others, make this place insufferable. You guys are what makes CARM such a horrid place. The only difference being that this place also has many members who are very nice and polite, plus they don't make wild accusations against me without providing evidence.

So, peace out. Hopefully you will get rid of the chip on your shoulder and stop having kneejerk reactions towards every non-Mormon who visits here.

Evidence? You yourself said you point out inaccuracies because LDS have a misunderstanding of their history. That is YOUR comment. You are throwing in the towel over your own statements. Nothing is knee-jerk.

Posted (edited)

I can't say I've seen non-Mormons here use any term of disparagement to label those who disagree with them. Though on othe forums I've seen the slur "mopologists" frequently in reference to Mormon apologists.

If "mopologist" amounts to a clipped form for Mormon apologist, I can't earnestly object to or feel insulted by it. To do so is to concede to the anti-Mormon disinformation and propaganda that there is anything inherently disreputable about being an apologist for (defender of) Mormonism.

So, regardless of the connotation an anti-Mormon might attach to the term apologist a defender of Mormonism can comfortably own the label, because he/she knows what it really means. In the same way, someone who vehemently opposes Mormonism ought to be able to own up to being anti-Mormon.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted

Evidence? You yourself said you point out inaccuracies because LDS have a misunderstanding of their history. That is YOUR comment. You are throwing in the towel over your own statements. Nothing is knee-jerk.

lol

Thats not what I said. I did not say Mormons have a misunderstanding of *their own* Church history. I've never once corrected a Mormon about LDS church history as far as I can remember. Give me an example of where I have. In fact, I try to preface my comments with something like, "If I understand LDS beliefs/history correctly...", because I know I don't have a deep knowledge if the LDS Church.

Posted (edited)

Thats not what I said. I did not say Mormons have a misunderstanding of *their own* Church history. I've never once corrected a Mormon about LDS church history as far as I can remember. Give me an example of where I have. In fact, I try to preface my comments with something like, "If I understand LDS beliefs/history correctly...", because I know I don't have a deep knowledge if the LDS Church.

Ares, just one more comment to point out where the misunderstanding occurred.....just in case diglot's last comment did not clear it up.

When diglot said "church history" he was not talking about the LDS church, but Christianity in general...which he has a perfect right to talk about and from what I've seen he is educated in this area. After all, we have all seen LDS among the offenders of presenting this type of church history incorrectly.

I think much offense can be avoided if when we read something that appears offensive at first glance, if we go back and reread it attempting to find if it is possible to understand it in a non offensive or technical way. This works for labels such as "anti-mormon" as well as misreadings such as just occurred.

Edited by calmoriah
Posted (edited)

How reliable is FAIR?

I mean if I email a doctrinal question to the apologists there (instead of posting it here), how confident can I be that the answer I get will doctrinally sound (from an LDS pov)?

Hi. An interesting discussion went on between your question and me posting a response. I thought I'd provide an answer for you, seeing as how I have written a few things for FAIR, know most of those involved with FAIR, and host certain episodes of FAIR's podcast. I originally discovered FAIR through google. Like you, I wondered how "reliable" they were, given that just about anyone these days can go online and say just about anything. I got a few answers to a few questions, but more importantly, I became interested in how those answers were provided, how the people responding to me put those answers together. I was attending a university at the time studying journalism, so I knew a little about gathering information, the problems of bias, etc. Through this message board I came to know a few FAIR people individually and they invited me to do some volunteer stuff with the FAIR wiki, and to help answer questions through their email. I discovered that it was just as important to learn how to answer questions for myself as it was to try and provide answers for other people. I learned that people at FAIR have different opinions than I did about various LDS beliefs. I learned that there are a lot of unanswered questions. I learned how to ask better questions. On my own I started reading more widely about the philosophy of history, and about theology and other subjects. I became interested in religious studies. Now I'm a grad student at Georgetown University working on a master's degree in religious studies.

I don't bring this up to brag, but to point out that FAIR has been a valuable resource for me, despite whatever disagreements I have with various FAIR writings, despite the fact that, like any other institution, FAIR has flaws. FAIR is made up of a pretty cool group of volunteers who sincerely want to help people deal with their doubts and struggles. Ultimately, I hope you are interested enough to become able to answer your own initial question. After a while you might even discover that the question itself needs revising. And that's ok too. Asking about "official doctrine" is somewhat sticky, because you'll get a few different answers, depending on who you ask. One thing that would help me answer the question is knowing what the asker intends to do with the answer. Are you looking for "the" LDS doctrine on something? Are you wondering whether Mormons are required to believe some particular things in order to belong (or even in order to be saved)? Are you a member who wants to know if FAIR provides material suitable for member usage? Etc. Etc. Etc.!

If you're interested in talking more, pm me, or feel free to email me at lifeonaplate [at] gmail [dot] com.

Edited by LifeOnaPlate
Posted

Yep- because endlessly/needlessly flogging Mormons about the use of a perfectly reasonable and descriptive word makes sooooo much better use of your time.....

;)

To be honest diglot, the last page or so of this thread seems to make it clear that you ARE intent on proving us wrong- at least on that one point. :diablo::crazy:8P:acute:

To be fair, I must point out that it was I who challenged diglot on his earlier assertion in another thread that anti-Mormon is a slur. I can't blame him for endeavoring to explain himself in response to my challenge.

Pardon, Ares. I don't mean to drag this out, but to some degree I feel responsible for setting diglot up as a fall guy here, and I'm just trying to remedy that perhaps by diminishing the tension.

Posted
How reliable is FAIR?

I mean if I email a doctrinal question to the apologists there (instead of posting it here), how confident can I be that the answer I get will doctrinally sound (from an LDS pov)?

As long as the reference is from something published specifically by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (not the D-News, not BYU, not signature books etc.), you're on doctrinal ground. FAIR seems generally to do a good job of this but I'd still be careful as I've seen some instances where they didn't do that.

History is another matter. Again, the Church's historical position will only be found in works published by the Church, but the Church often doesn't take a position on many historical matters and it is here where FAIR excels.

In other words, you can be as doctrinally sound as FAIR or more because you will have the same access to what the Church publishes as they do.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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