Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
By Five Solas
On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence. He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness. He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”
In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given. So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here. How do you feel about critics? Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains? Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)? Have a go & don’t hold back. We critics know how some of you feel already.
She appears composed, so she is, I suppose
Who can really tell?
She shows no emotion at all
Stares into space like a dead china doll
--Elliott Smith, "Waltz #2"
Pretty good article on how to handle critics and protesters:
"The Internet is an easy target for pajama-clad critics trolling the sour waters of discontent to hook the curious. While faithful members of the LDS Church sometimes feel like punching bags, punching back only leads to black eyes. What we need is not more doctrinal ammunition in the war of words, but more kindness from the wellspring of wisdom. When sharing our beliefs, civility should not depend on winning or losing an argument. We ensure civility when our character is one of a “meek and lowly...heart” (Doctrine and Covenants 32:1). We should share our beliefs in faith with respect for opposing viewpoints, including the faith to keep silent when emotion says otherwise. Honest discussion over differences in faith can be healthy, but when civility bleeds away, raised voices are an anemic substitute for substance. Engaging in angry debate over matters of faith often leaves the combatants spiritually bruised and more deeply entrenched in the rightness of their cause." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865638627/Friday-Minute-What-to-do-when-critics-howl-around-general-conference.html
I have a question for the women who defend the church (which doesn't mean you agree with every policy.)
1. Do you consider apologetics to be a "male" activity? Or at least male dominated?
2. If so, in your opinion does that discourage women from joining in?
3. What experiences have you had as a woman where you were treated differently or talked to differently than a man?
4. Have you noticed situations where women were treated differently? (Not given the same credibility, etc.)
5. Do you feel like you are more free to speak up online than in church or in person without having to defer to "the priesthood?" (i.e., if you were speaking to a bishop online would you consider him to have the last word as often happens in wards when it comes to doctrinal or scriptural matters?)
6. Do you notice more women coming online to talk about religion?
Any other insights?
A question for the women here who speak up for the church: Do you identify as an "apologist?" If not, would you identify as a defender of the church?
Why is "apologetics?" so male dominated?
If you are critical of some aspects of the church, do you think that disqualifies you as being an "apologist" or defender?
If you do consider yourself a defender of the church, what motivates you?
Where are you most comfortable? (Blogs, message boards, publishing, etc.)
I'd appreciate any and all input from women who are putting themselves out there. I think it makes you quite unique and would like to know more about the dynamics from your perspectives.
I found a comic I was looking for earlier today when someone was using the old line "I was only being honest" to justify some pointed comments. That line, when used to justify a lack of civility has always bothered me. I'm not feigning innocence. Goodness knows I've shared my quota of snarkyness...
I share it here without further comment.