why me Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 nvmOne more thing. You seem to love trees. How should people who love the forest address the farmers and money men behind the destruction of the rain forest? How would you defend the trees that you love against people who wish to make a profit? Do you show emotion? Do you show passion? Do you show contempt? Please let me know.
why me Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) Sorry for my emotion and passion. But hey, I am just a human being. The lds need to be passionate about defending their faith. We are not in a cult where all emotion except love for the leader should be repressed. Right? Edited May 12, 2012 by why me 1
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Feel free to read of some personal attacks made against me recently over at the Mormon Discussion Board. Ignoring them is really easy if you know the truth.Hey we all get our 15 minutes of abuse over there
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 I've not posted here since September of last year, but had to break my silence to applaude this post.Good to see you- you are certainly a veteran of the board wars as well!
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Yes, because "Rufus" is a transparent sock puppet--probably a regular poster from MDB--who created an account and popped into this thread to provide tangible "evidence" of the fact that LDS apologia destroys faith.Precisely my feelings as well.
Kenngo1969 Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 FWIW, I serve in a Stake just north of Atlanta. We're very pleased with our number of strong and committed covert baptisms this year. None of which, I'm aware, have come from Utah.If they're covert baptisms, are they conducted by the special detachment of the Georgia Atlanta Mission known as the Atlanta LDS-MIB? (And, if so, do the Agents of the LDS-MIB have that cool, memory-eraser, "We-were-never-here" thingy?) Are covert baptisms recorded (under actual names or under assumed names)? Do members added to the rolls of the Church of Jesus Christ in this way automatically enter witness protection? (Speaking of which, as an irrelevant aside, I wonder what would happen to one's membership if s/he entered witness protection? I imagine it could be maintained somehow ... but it does raise some interesting challenges and questions ...)Sorry. Couldn't resist. 2
bcuzbcuz Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Several years ago, I read Professor Arthur Brooks's Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism (New York: Basic Books, 2006), which argues on the basis of numerous social science studies that, despite their preening of themselves on their superior concern for the poor, their very vocal boasting of their warmer hearts, and their frequently expressed disdain for religious conservatives, liberal secularists give considerably less to charity (and even to non-religious charities) and do considerably less charitable volunteering than do religious conservatives. Wow, when you take aim at something you like to use the scattergun approach. Those "preening, boasting, disdainful, liberal secularists" sure seem like a nasty bunch.Brooks' book and his statistics came under a good deal of reproach and critique when it came out. Did he calculate tithes and church donations as charitable donations? And can all such contributions automatically be considered charity?More recently, as 2010, charitable donations have dropped by 11%. Does this mean that religious affiliation has dropped by 11%? Or could it reflect that as times get tougher charity becomes meaner and leaner?Furthermore, his study included no data from outside the US. Would such stats support his rather sweeping claims of charity being at the forefront of religious belief?
wenglund Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 LOL! Where did I "severely" criticize you? http://www.merriam-w...onary/castigate I suggested there were limits that we don't cross. You don't agree? I don't much care, but nothing I said warranted your accusation of rebellion. If nothing else, this exchange exemplifies the VERY type of ham-fisted approach being decried by many of us for years now.It was uncharitable for you to repeatedly ersonally attack CA and become contentious with him in this way. Motes and beams.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Nevo Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 I just want to say, if there is still to be a piece published on John Dehlin, I hope to goodness that it is fair and not just a "hit piece", (as it has been described).I have no doubt it will be accurate, although I'm not surprised to see Dehlin try to suppress it.There should be room in the church for John and people like him, IMO, questions and all..mistakes and all. We all make them.If by "people like [John Dehlin]" you mean doubters and sinners, then of course I agree with you. However, if by "people like [John Dehlin]" you mean agitators and self-anointed leaders of advocacy groups within the Church (the NOM movement), then I'm not sure that I agree with you.Like many here, I have appreciated many of John's podcasts. But I think he's something of a false prophet and I'm disappointed to see General Authorities apparently doing his bidding. 3
ERayR Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Wow, when you take aim at something you like to use the scattergun approach. Those "preening, boasting, disdainful, liberal secularists" sure seem like a nasty bunch.Brooks' book and his statistics came under a good deal of reproach and critique when it came out. Did he calculate tithes and church donations as charitable donations? And can all such contributions automatically be considered charity?More recently, as 2010, charitable donations have dropped by 11%. Does this mean that religious affiliation has dropped by 11%? Or could it reflect that as times get tougher charity becomes meaner and leaner?Furthermore, his study included no data from outside the US. Would such stats support his rather sweeping claims of charity being at the forefront of religious belief?Unless I am confusing it with another study it was in percent of income given to any charitable cause.
juliann Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) I have no doubt it will be accurate, although I'm not surprised to see Dehlin try to suppress it.If by "people like [John Dehlin]" you mean doubters and sinners, then of course I agree with you. However, if by "people like [John Dehlin]" you mean agitators and self-anointed leaders of advocacy groups within the Church (the NOM movement), then I'm not sure that I agree with you.Like many here, I have appreciated many of John's podcasts. But I think he's something of a false prophet and I'm disappointed to see General Authorities apparently doing his bidding.To date, there has been zero evidence that any "GA" was involved in anything at all. I really doubt it. I think it is much more likely and believable that a "GA" would be involved with organizations who support the church, but they wouldn't drop names. To me the biggest huh? of this whole thing is the utter inability of so many to separate FAIR and MI, especially Dehlin, who does know better. I remain disappointed that he has chosen to selectively print personal emails along with insults. I am especially disheartened that he is so hostile towards FAIR that he would accuse Scott Gordon of something that didn't happen at all....by leaving out the other email that shows what Dehlin said to be untrue. It is bad enough to post a personal email, how does one describe someone who would do that but leave out the part of the exchange that shows his accusation to be false.I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Dehlin did not respond to my appeal to stop the hostility and extend a hand in friendship rather than using it to slap. Edited May 12, 2012 by juliann 3
juliann Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) I hold this out as exhibit A 1 for how to respond to those who have questions, concerns and/or issues that are causing a testimony to be in turmoil. Well done Mr. Barney.Good to see you, Teancum. I agree. But you should also note that it was completely ignored in favor of responding to others. And that is as big a part of the problem as anything else. I think the hostility, as demonstrated by Dehlin, is so out of control that responses such as this one will continue to be completely ignored no matter how many times they are offered. (Even you spent the majority of your time furthering the fight by only responding to the angry posts ) Edited May 12, 2012 by juliann 1
wenglund Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) I could be wrong, but I get the sense that some participants here believe that the higher standard and charity invariably means turning the other cheek and returning wrath with kindness and speaking civilly.To me, what I take away from CA's commments about Christ and our following the Savior's example, is that while turning the other cheek and returning wrath with kindness are wonderful rules to live by, nevertheless, there are occasions and circumstances where the higher standard and charity demand a scathing rebuke, turning over tables, amd drving out the sacreligious with the snap of the whip (verbal or otherwise), uncloaking the wolves in sheep clothing and vigorously contending with them.I also get the sense that some of the more ardent advocates of higher standards and charity and not crossing the line, may conveniently experience a momentary bout of amnesia in regards to those admirable precepts,when they portend to stand in judgement of those who may have felt it appropriate at times to explicate the whitted seplecurs, that, or who use those explications as a lame and confused excuse to shift responsibility and blame from themselves to others for the loss of their faith. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited May 12, 2012 by wenglund
Cushan Rishathaim Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) there are occasions and circumstances where the higher standard and charity demand a scathing rebuke, turning over tables, amd drving out the sacreligious with the snap of the whip (verbal or otherwise), uncloaking the wolves in sheep clothing and vigorously contending with them.I couldn’t disagree more. To define charity as a force that leads apologists to present a scathing rebuke, drive out the sacrilegious with either a verbal or literal whip, and to contend vigorously with those with whom the apologist disagrees is not the way the New Testament defines charity.Compare this view of “charity” with the definition provided in 1 Corinthians 13:"Charity suffereth long, and is kind charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things” (vv. 4-7)In fact, this definition of charity is clearly the antithesis of the one you offered.The problem with apologists behaving in the manner that you prescribe is that in most cases, when a Mormon apologist presents a critic or non-traditional believer a scathing public rebuke, if the apologist is being honest, they’re frequently motivated by pride, rather than love.And even if the angry “charitable” apologist does “drive out the sacrilegious with a literal or figurative whip,” such actions to the outside observer are frequently perceived as hateful, fear driven actions performed by a close-minded person who cannot engage an argument against his or her faith without getting angry. Edited May 12, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim 4
Libs Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 I have no doubt it will be accurate, although I'm not surprised to see Dehlin try to suppress it.If by "people like [John Dehlin]" you mean doubters and sinners, then of course I agree with you. However, if by "people like [John Dehlin]" you mean agitators and self-anointed leaders of advocacy groups within the Church (the NOM movement), then I'm not sure that I agree with you.Like many here, I have appreciated many of John's podcasts. But I think he's something of a false prophet and I'm disappointed to see General Authorities apparently doing his bidding.These negative descriptions of John are very inaccurate and nothing but name calling...."agitator" "self anointed" "false prophet"??? sigh
Daniel Peterson Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Wow, when you take aim at something you like to use the scattergun approach. Those "preening, boasting, disdainful, liberal secularists" sure seem like a nasty bunch.I tend to disapprove of preening, disdain, and boastfulness. So, yes, I disapprove of preening, boasting, disdainful liberal secularists.Brooks' book and his statistics came under a good deal of reproach and critique when it came out.Of course. The book was controversial.Did he calculate tithes and church donations as charitable donations?Yes. But, as I noted, his research disclosed that religious charitable givers also give more to secular causes than do secularists.And can all such contributions automatically be considered charity?On the whole, yes.Furthermore, his study included no data from outside the US.On the contrary, it did.And he was able to show that there is, for example, comparatively little private charity in Europe.Would such stats support his rather sweeping claims of charity being at the forefront of religious belief?Have you read the book?
ttribe Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 It was uncharitable for you to repeatedly ersonally attack CA and become contentious with him in this way. Motes and beams.Thanks, -Wade Englund-[sigh] I did nothing of the sort, Wade. You need to break this new obsession you've developed with me.
Nevo Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) These negative descriptions of John are very inaccurate and nothing but name calling...."agitator" "self anointed" "false prophet"??? sighJohn seems like a nice guy. I think he's well intentioned. And he's helped many people...out of the Church. He has supported and facilitated their "transition" to non-belief and apparently sees himself as their chief spokesperson and champion. That's fine, but I don't think the Church needs more John Dehlins, advocating for and increasing the ranks of disaffected Mormons. As far as can tell, all of the members of my local "Mormon Stories Regional Support Community" are ex-Mormons. I expect that is the rule, rather than the exception.If John were genuinely interested in ministering to those with doubts, who are going through a crisis of faith, he would not be plying them with the likes of Grant Palmer. Palmer is not a serious historian and not a credible source of information on LDS history, yet John presents him as an expert. And a vulnerable, uninformed audience laps it up. I think John may actually be as clueless about LDS historical scholarship as many in his audience, so perhaps this is an honest mistake. But it is tragic all the same. Edited May 12, 2012 by Nevo 4
bcuzbcuz Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 I tend to disapprove of preening, disdain, and boastfulness. So, yes, I disapprove of preening, boasting, disdainful liberal secularists.Is it only liberal secularists that are preening, boastful and disdainful? As someone who lives outside the US but watches international news on a daily basis, I see preening and boastfulness and disdain on both sides of the aisle. I find it equally distasteful, no matter who displays it.And he was able to show that there is, for example, comparatively little private charity in Europe.And that statistic, although comparative, is of little consequence. The European country I have chosen to live in, has incorporated social charity within its social system. Education, medicine, medical care, income support and a social safety net, are free....(at least, they were, until the callous conservatives took over the reigns of power.)
jwhitlock Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 And that statistic, although comparative, is of little consequence. The European country I have chosen to live in, has incorporated social charity within its social system. Education, medicine, medical care, income support and a social safety net, are free....(at least, they were, until the callous conservatives took over the reigns of power.)I think you've pretty much summed up what is wrong with the socialist European welfare state.It appears that you don't understand that there is a significant difference between charitable service and support provided by individuals, and welfare provided by the state. The acts of individual charity and service build character and strength in individuals, and benefit society as a whole. State welfare in the European style removes individual responsibility and respect, and also removes the strength and growth that comes from true charitable giving.The comparison of Europe and the United States in this area is not applicable; statistically the difference is clearly significant.
Log Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) John seems like a nice guy. I think he's well intentioned. And he's helped many people...out of the Church. He has supported and facilitated their "transition" to non-belief and apparently sees himself as their chief spokesperson and champion. That's fine, but I don't think the Church needs more John Dehlins, advocating for and increasing the ranks of disaffected Mormons. As far as can tell, all of the members of my local "Mormon Stories Regional Support Community" are ex-Mormons. I expect that is the rule, rather than the exception.That is an interesting observation. It is likewise an interesting exercise to interpret the Mormon Stories shared value statements from the knowledge that they are held by an atheist:1) We acknowledge the richness of Mormon heritage, teachings, and community in all of its diversity.2) We believe that one can self-identify as Mormon based on one’s genealogy, upbringing, beliefs, relationships, and other life experiences, regardless of one’s adherence or non-adherence to the teachings or doctrines of any religious organization.3) We seek spaces where we as Mormons can live lives of intellectual and spiritual integrity, individual conscience, and personal dignity.4) We acknowledge and honor different spiritual paths and modes of religious or non-religious truth-seeking. We respect the convictions of those who subscribe to ideas and beliefs that differ from our own.5) We recognize the confusion, distress, emotional trauma, and social ostracism that people on faith journeys often experience. We seek constructive ways of helping and supporting people, regardless of their ultimate decisions regarding church affiliation or activity.6) We affirm the inherent and equal worth of all human beings. We seek spaces where Mormons (and all people) can interact as equals regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. In this spirit of egalitarianism, we prefer non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical means of organization and affiliation.7) In addition to explicitly striving to align all operations with the Mormon Stories Shared Values, we endeavor to ensure that the projects we undertake: a) support individuals in Mormon-related faith crises, b) save marriages, c) heal families, and d) celebrate, challenge, and advance Mormon culture in healthy ways. Edited May 12, 2012 by Log
Hamilton Porter Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 What is the point of criticizing John Dehlin? He is not anti. If he is criticized he will get offended, really leave the Church, and become Bob McCue II. He has a large following. 1
wenglund Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 I couldn’t disagree more. To define charity as a force that leads apologists to present a scathing rebuke, drive out the sacrilegious with either a verbal or literal whip, and to contend vigorously with those with whom the apologist disagrees is not the way the New Testament defines charity.Compare this view of “charity” with the definition provided in 1 Corinthians 13:"Charity suffereth long, and is kind charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things” (vv. 4-7)In fact, this definition of charity is clearly the antithesis of the one you offered.I don't view this vague definition in isolation, nor do I view it in the seemingly black/white sense that you do. For one, it says nothing about giving to the poor or lending a hand to those in need, so evidently it isn't an exhaustive definition. For another, have you heard the Shakespearean phrase, "I must be cruel only to be kind"?The fascinating and oft nuanced notion of "charity" isn't as simplistic as you may suppose. To my mind, it certainly isn't the "antithises" of exceptional situations like I briefly mentioned. Otherwise, Christ's previously denoted actions would be deemed uncharitable--which wouldn't make sense since charity is also defined as the "pure love of Christ."The problem with apologists behaving in the manner that you prescribe is that in most cases, when a Mormon apologist presents a critic or non-traditional believer a scathing public rebuke, if the apologist is being honest, they’re frequently motivated by pride, rather than love.I haven't taken a survey, so I don't know if you are being charitable or not in your judgement of apologists. I can only speak for myself and say that my rebukes are typically motivated by love, and often come in response to unwarranted or uncharitable rebukes, mockery, slander, desecration of the sacred, harm inflicted, ect. by critics. My first love has been in protection of my faith and my fellow members, and my second love has been for those who are unwittingly degrading themselves by their unwarranted and dysfunctional attacks on my faith and my fellow members.I realize, though, that this nuanced concept of love and charity may not register with some. To each their own.And even if the angry “charitable” apologist does “drive out the sacrilegious with a literal or figurative whip,” such actions to the outside observer are frequently perceived as hateful, fear driven actions performed by a close-minded person who cannot engage an argument against his or her faith without getting angry.I understand that people will misperceive our actions. They did at times with Christ. But, the potential for misperceptions isn't always a good reason not to do what one feels is right and best.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 [sigh] I did nothing of the sort, Wade. You need to break this new obsession you've developed with me.Now you are insulting and contending with me by claiming I am obsessed with you. Again, motes and beams.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
why me Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 These negative descriptions of John are very inaccurate and nothing but name calling...."agitator" "self anointed" "false prophet"??? sighHowever, we have no idea just what is in the piece. Those who have seen it have stated that it is not a hit piece. If this is the case, then obviously John overreacted. I think that John himself has put himself in this position. I think that John would have faired better if he just let the article be published and then respond. By him acting the way he did shows that he is afraid of the article and what the article says. And this has nothing to do with a hit piece but rather with an article that takes him on head on.
Recommended Posts