Why Are We Such Brittle Christians?

[Rain]

when you feel the Spirit it's much more intense than a feeling. You feel the love, power, and glory of God wrap around you as pure intelligence fills your mind. Your heart and mind expand. It's a truly.humbling experience.

I think that is what is missed by many. The mind part. Sometimes by those who have not felt it or felt it and recognized it, some by those who don't know how to describe it.

It is different than comes into my mind as I study for a class. It is clarity that I recognize that doesn't come from my brain. Somehow my thinking becomes very clear. I "feel" it as peace because some bit of enlightenment has made it's way into my reasoning.

Besides the problem with not know how to describe the influence of the Holy Ghost is the idea of feeling the need to describe his influence. When you are with a group of believers then you assume everyone else in the group has felt it and there is no need to get into details. Then when you are describing it to someone who may not have felt it you lack familiar words. I see this all the time.

Then I see also some who have gifts of sharing the simple gospel principles and some who struggle with it. It's kind of like teaching basic math. I'm good at math, but trying to teach adding, subtracting etc. Is difficult for me. Many know the basic doctrine, but lack the gift of knowledge/wisdom to teach it.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Rain

[pogi]

 God bless you Pogi, and have a Merry Christmas.

 

God bless and Merry Christmas to you too!

[pogi]

oh I don't know. Since I am so easily brought to tears, I spend time examining why. Tears is not an indication of the Holy Spirit. If they were then my sister, who never cries and is very Mormon, must have something wrong with her and maybe should consider atheism. I'm being facetious, of course.

 

Different gifts and fruits for different people.  Not all emotional experience is spiritual, and not not all spiritual experience is emotional. 

 

The head and the heart work together. Faith without reason is fanaticism, reason without faith is atheism. There's a good balance in the center, where both exist. God created us with the ability to reason. Therefore both reason and faith are gifts given to us, by God. I rarely see a Mormon encourage reason to go along with emotions. That lack of encouragement to reason is a faith crisis waiting to happen.

 

Agreed, there was an excellent general conference talk on that very subject, comparing faith and reason to the wings on an airplane.  I can't remember who gave the talk however.  

 

The only problem is that there is an almost infinitely wide chasm that reason cannot cross.  At some point we must abandon all reason as reason can only take us so far.  At that point, we are flying on one wing, and somehow we are carried into experiences and places that defy logic and reason. 

 

When a former LDS is criticizing the emphasis on feelings in Mormonis, it is because there is never expressed a rational explanation to go with those feelings. Along with the tendency of LDS to interpret the feelings of others, as you do in this post, and ascribe meaning to the feelings of others because what you've been taught. Feeling A = X, not having feeling A = Y. Guess what. I call that emotional manipulation. I invite you to go work it on someone else.

 

Christ himself helped others to identify the spirit in sharing what emotions and experiences accompany it.  He described it's fruits and accompanying gifts.  There is no rational explanation for spiritual experience.  Kneeling before an unperceivable and in many ways, incomprehensible being is not an act of reason.  The experiences and feelings that often accompany such unreasonable communion is yet inexplicably real. 

 

You call your faith a "miracle", which by definition confounds and defies reason.  If you can experience the miracle of faith which confounds reason, why cannot a Mormon feel the spirit as Christ described in a way which confounds reason?  Even though your faith is a miracle, I have no reason to doubt your faith, because I believe in miracles.  I hope that others would acknowledge our same right to inexplicable and even miraculous spiritual experiences. 

Edited December 23, 2014 by pogi

[Spammer]

Different gifts and fruits for different people.  Not all emotional experience is spiritual, and not not all spiritual experience is emotional. 

 

 

Agreed, there was an excellent general conference talk on that very subject, comparing faith and reason to the wings on an airplane.  I can't remember who gave the talk however.  

 

The only problem is that there is an almost infinitely wide chasm that reason cannot cross.  At some point we must abandon all reason as reason can only take us so far.  At that point, we are flying on one wing, and somehow we are carried into experiences and places that defy logic and reason. 

 

 

Christ himself helped others to identify the spirit in sharing what emotions and experiences accompany it.  He described it's fruits and accompanying gifts.  There is no rational explanation for spiritual experience.  Kneeling before an unperceivable and in many ways, incomprehensible being is not an act of reason.  The experiences and feelings that often accompany such unreasonable communion is yet inexplicably real. 

 

You call your faith a "miracle", which by definition confounds and defies reason.  If you can experience the miracle of faith which confounds reason, why cannot a Mormon feel the spirit as Christ described in a way which confounds reason?  Even though your faith is a miracle, I have no reason to doubt your faith, because I believe in miracles.  I hope that others would acknowledge our same right to inexplicable and even miraculous spiritual experiences.  

 

The Holy Spirit blows where it wills and the God who is Love bestows his blessings on all, seeking to draw all unto Himself according to who they are, when they are, and who they are.  Miraculous spiritual experiences are not unique to any time or faith tradition.  Since people of all traditions experience them, that does mean that such miracles cannot be used in isolation to decide on the historical proposition of which tradition is "true" or closest to what our Lord intended originally.  Reason and a review of the available evidence must also come into play.  Miraculous experiences, no matter how profound or earth shattering, must be considered alongside historical evidence if that question is to be properly answered.  Spiritual experiences are had by all and sundry, but because all have these subjective experiences, determining the objective question of which tradition contains the "fullness" requires more than just the existence of those experiences.   Restricting oneself solely to those experiences when deciding which tradition to unite with only allows you to say "it's true for me but maybe not for you". Declarations about the objective truth of one's religious beliefs and traditions are ruled out.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Spammer

[why me]

When a former LDS is criticizing the emphasis on feelings in Mormonis, it is because there is never expressed a rational explanation to go with those feelings. Along with the tendency of LDS to interpret the feelings of others, as you do in this post, and ascribe meaning to the feelings of others because what you've been taught. Feeling A = X, not having feeling A = Y. Guess what. I call that emotional manipulation. I invite you to go work it on someone else.

I think that my point was that it is often not a feeling but an experience. Now I do think that lds may use feelings but they actually can mean experiences. I would never go on a feeling but I would be favorable to experiences. So, when I went into that home, I had a spiritual experience and not a feeling. And when I prayed about the book of mormon, I had a spiritual experience and not a feeling. I think that there some confusion over feelings and experiences. Also when exmembers mock the burning of the bossom idea. I don't think that I ever had such a burning of the bossom. On a sidenote I was very careful not to get caught up in the moment and when I went back home for christmas, I wanted to see if I actually had spiritual experiences of if I was just caught up in the moment. I then prayed about the doctrine and covenants and had a spiritual experience that it was also true. That convinced me. And when I returned from christmas break, I joined the lds church. I can't deny those experiences. I do think that I admitted this on the catholic forum. I was sincere there but I just got a lot of mocking.

[pogi]

The Holy Spirit blows where it wills and the God who is Love bestows his blessings on all, seeking to draw all unto Himself according to who they are, when they are, and who they are.  Miraculous spiritual experiences are not unique to any time or faith tradition.  Since people of all traditions experience them, that does mean that such miracles cannot be used in isolation to decide on the historical proposition of which tradition is "true" or closest to what our Lord intended originally.  Reason and a review of the available evidence must also come into play.  Miraculous experiences, no matter how profound or earth shattering, must be considered alongside historical evidence if that question is to be properly answered.  Spiritual experiences are had by all and sundry, but because all have these subjective experiences, determining the objective question of which tradition contains the "fullness" requires more than just the existence of those experiences.   Restricting oneself solely to those experiences when deciding which tradition to unite with only allows you to say "it's true for me but maybe not for you". Declarations about the objective truth of one's religious beliefs and traditions are ruled out.

 

I can't say that I disagree with you on most of what you say, but I will say this:  Objective claims of religious truth can only be known in a relative and subjective way, and so we are led line upon line, precept upon precept.  For example, lets consider the objective claim that God lives and loves us all.  Without the spirit, what have we to conclude about this statement?  That we cannot know if God exists, and from analyzing history, we would conclude that IF God does exist, he doesn't seem to care about his children.  Reason, in this case, contradicts with spiritual experience.  Which are you going to lean on in this case, fallible reason and logic and an imperfect historical understanding lacking a divine perspective, or are you going to lean on the only thing that you know for sure - experience with God?

Edited December 23, 2014 by pogi

[Spammer]

Objective claims of religious truth can only be known in a relative and subjective way,

 

Exactly right.  Our so-called 'objective' evidence depends on subjective interpretations filtered through language.  What's a person to do?  If reason tells us that all we can really know is our subjective states, the best we can do is live our lives with patience and humility, and refrain from being too bold when making sweeping assertions like "I know this church is true".  It's not just Mormons who talk that way. 

[pogi]

Exactly right.  Our so-called 'objective' evidence depends on subjective interpretations filtered through language.  What's a person to do?  If reason tells us that all we can really know is our subjective states, the best we can do is live our lives with patience and humility, and refrain from being too bold when making sweeping assertions like "I know this church is true".  It's not just Mormons who talk that way. 

 

Declaring our personal experience is not too bold in my view.  It is my experience that when we act on and share what we have been given, we are given more, but when we hesitate, we lose even that which we were given.  Should I hesitate to declare as Peter "thou art the Christ the son of the Living God", because it is too bold and not all agree with me?  Because my path is right for me, does not mean that your path is wrong for you?  does that make sense?

Edited December 23, 2014 by pogi

[Spammer]

Declaring our personal experience is not too bold in my view.  It is my experience that when we act on and share what we have been given, we are given more, but when we hesitate, we lose even that which we were given.  Should I hesitate to declare as Peter "thou art the Christ the son of the Living God", because it is too bold and not all agree with me?  Because my path is right for me, does not mean that your path is wrong for you?  does that make sense?

 

I agree that declaring our personal experience is not too bold.  We just need to be careful and not be too bold and assert that our personal experience necessarily corresponds with objective reality, no matter how powerful the experience.  Our experience is our experience and none can deny it.  Similarly, others' experience is their experience and we can't deny theirs.  Neither of us has any basis for doing so unless we're each able to experience what the other experiences as they experience it and even then we're still subject to convention - the one we bring to our subjective experience of the other's own subjective experience.  It's all just interpretation.  At most all we can say is that we believe (we think, we hope) that our experience so correpsonds.  That's where language comes in.  We share notes to discover whether others have had a similar experience and when we find them that increases our confidence that we might just have tapped into a piece of what's "out there".  Even then, the common language and framework within which we share notes is just a convention, so even if our confidence is increased we have to make sure we're not too bold when we say "I know".  It's best to tread lightly, as you've said before, and not seek to deny the validity of others' experiences based on our own.  Because your path is right for you, does not mean that my path is wrong for me.  And vice versa.  If we want to engage in conversation and pretend that we can approach objective reality collaboratively, we need a common language and framework to do so.  When it comes to historical propositions, there are established methods and rules of evidence that are currently the reigning norm for that kind of inquiry.  If we really want to decide which faith tradition best approaches Jesus' own self-established norm, the best we can do is to agree on some standards of evidence and proceed.  Relying solely on personal experience is only sufficient to preach to the choir or to convince others who lack that kind of experience and are seeking one.  But once they acquire their own experience, they're subjected to the same limitations about too boldly asserting "I know" that we've been discussing.  In the end, Jesus' advice about loving and serving God and our neighbor is what counts.  We can't really KNOW whether any of our propositions are objectively true but we can get to know other people.  Relationships are what count. 

[pogi]

I agree that declaring our personal experience is not too bold.  We just need to be careful and not be too bold and assert that our personal experience necessarily corresponds with objective reality, no matter how powerful the experience.  Our experience is our experience and none can deny it.  Similarly, others' experience is their experience and we can't deny theirs.  Neither of us has any basis for doing so unless we're each able to experience what the other experiences as they experience it and even then we're still subject to convention - the one we bring to our subjective experience of the other's own subjective experience.  It's all just interpretation.  At most all we can say is that we believe (we think, we hope) that our experience so correpsonds.  That's where language comes in.  We share notes to discover whether others have had a similar experience and when we find them that increases our confidence that we might just have tapped into a piece of what's "out there".  Even then, the common language and framework within which we share notes is just a convention, so even if our confidence is increased we have to make sure we're not too bold when we say "I know".  It's best to tread lightly, as you've said before, and not seek to deny the validity of others' experiences based on our own.  Because your path is right for you, does not mean that my path is wrong for me.  And vice versa.  If we want to engage in conversation and pretend that we can approach objective reality collaboratively, we need a common language and framework to do so.  When it comes to historical propositions, there are established methods and rules of evidence that are currently the reigning norm for that kind of inquiry.  If we really want to decide which faith tradition best approaches Jesus' own self-established norm, the best we can do is to agree on some standards of evidence and proceed.  Relying solely on personal experience is only sufficient to preach to the choir or to convince others who lack that kind of experience and are seeking one.  But once they acquire their own experience, they're subjected to the same limitations about too boldly asserting "I know" that we've been discussing.  In the end, Jesus' advice about loving and serving God and our neighbor is what counts.  We can't really KNOW whether any of our propositions are objectively true but we can get to know other people.  Relationships are what count. 

 

Are you sure that you are not mfBukowski in disguise (with some obvious exceptions)?  Again, I agree with most of what you are saying.  My point is simply this, objective reality or truth cannot be known, all we have is relative and subjective experience.  For me to say as Job that, "I know that my redeemer liveth and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:  Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me", is to me no different than saying that "I know that there is a roof over my head right now."  I cannot state that either of these statement correspond with an objective reality, but I can say that I know both statements equally. 

 

I have a problem with this:

 

If we want to engage in conversation and pretend that we can approach objective reality collaboratively, we need a common language and framework to do so.  When it comes to historical propositions, there are established methods and rules of evidence that are currently the reigning norm for that kind of inquiry.  If we really want to decide which faith tradition best approaches Jesus' own self-established norm, the best we can do is to agree on some standards of evidence and proceed

 

 If we want to approach "objective reality" words are not going to get us there. It is in fact something that we cannot know in this life.  The problem is that we simply can't "decide which faith tradition best approaches Jesus' own self-established norm" with any degree of certainty based on the evidence.  The evidence is too unreliable, non-existent, and subject to interpretation.  Scholars cannot agree, why would you suspect that the lay person could come to a certain conclusion?  Do you really think that God would leave our eternal salvation in the hands of conflicting scholars?  I look at the trail of evidence to Jesus' "self-established norm" and feel unsure, unsafe, and untrusting of the evidence and can see many possible interpretations of the evidence, but then I look at my experience with prayer and find a calm assurance and awareness of God. 

Edited December 23, 2014 by pogi

[Calm]

On a personal note, I am saddened that I can't do such things within the Mormon context. Not nearly enough Mormonness had rubbed off on me. However, I'll just have to take solace in something my Nana used to always say, "I ain't what I want to be. I ain't what I'm gonna be. But, thank God, I ain't what I was."

I don't know if having made your decision you are interested in such information, but if you are interested in the context of how blacks and the LDS Church have interacted historically, I suggest reading this:

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/For-the-Cause-of-Righteousness/311424889052159

Edited December 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

I don't know if having made your decision you are interested in such information, but if you are interested in the context of how blacks and the LDS Church have interacted historically, I suggest reading this:

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/For-the-Cause-of-Righteousness/311424889052159

I have always had this feeling that mormonnewb was extremely critical of the lds church. And his posts were that of a seasoned critic. I do not find it a surprise that he has left the fold. And his reasons do not seem valid. Let us hope that we were not played like a well tuned guitar.

 

The baptist church has done very little to address the 'black issue' in america. America is not the society of MLK. It is no longer a white black society but a multcultural society where the african americans represent a minority of 12 % of the population. And that hasn't changed much in decades. However, the asian and hispanic population and the population from africa has increased a great deal. To address the african american problem one must aslo address the relationship that they have with the rest of the multicultural community.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Heavenly Father gives His hardest battles to His strongest soldiers.

[saemo]

Different gifts and fruits for different people. Not all emotional experience is spiritual, and not not all spiritual experience is emotional.

Agreed, there was an excellent general conference talk on that very subject, comparing faith and reason to the wings on an airplane. I can't remember who gave the talk however.

The only problem is that there is an almost infinitely wide chasm that reason cannot cross. At some point we must abandon all reason as reason can only take us so far. At that point, we are flying on one wing, and somehow we are carried into experiences and places that defy logic and reason.

Christ himself helped others to identify the spirit in sharing what emotions and experiences accompany it. He described it's fruits and accompanying gifts. There is no rational explanation for spiritual experience. Kneeling before an unperceivable and in many ways, incomprehensible being is not an act of reason. The experiences and feelings that often accompany such unreasonable communion is yet inexplicably real.

You call your faith a "miracle", which by definition confounds and defies reason. If you can experience the miracle of faith which confounds reason, why cannot a Mormon feel the spirit as Christ described in a way which confounds reason? Even though your faith is a miracle, I have no reason to doubt your faith, because I believe in miracles. I hope that others would acknowledge our same right to inexplicable and even miraculous spiritual experiences.

I have reasoned out my faith. I am incapable of believing for the sake of believing. I don't know why anyone would have that sort of "faith". Faith for me was a leap, based on reasoning as to why I would make that leap at all. If I had no reason to make that leap, I would not have. The Reason, of course, is for me, Jesus. The Logos, who is God's reasoning made manifest in the flesh. He is the object of my faith, and I don't view the Person of Jesus Christ as a subjective encounter, but an encounter with Truth itself. He is Truth. He is Reason. He is Justtice. What I seek as a Christian, is to understand the object of my faith.

I hold no belief that God limits miracles to only Catholics. My understanding of personal miracles is that they are given for the benefit of that person. I am under no obligation to believe or accept the personal experience of anyone. It is why I am with Spammer, on his idea of not making bold statements based on personal experience. Who has the obligation to accept or believe my own personal experience? No one. It is the Holy Spirit who brings people to Jesus Christ, not the experience of someone else. I rarely share my own spiritual experiences, for that reason, and for the reason that I don't have a desire to manipulate people's emotions via my experiences of God. I don't believe that is their purpose.

Edited December 28, 2014 by saemo

[pogi]

I have reasoned out my faith. I am incapable of believing for the sake of believing. I don't know why anyone would have that sort of "faith".

My understanding of personal miracles is that they are given for the benefit of that person.

 

We all have our reasons saemo.  Faith for me was also a leap based on reason...reasons that I cannot doubt.

 

What if Paul did not share his experiences?  What if Peter likewise, or any of the prophets from the beginning?  

 

"...make known his deeds among the peoples!" (1 Chronicles 16:8 ).  His deeds have not seized with the bible, neither has testimony seized with the last apostle, but continues in me, and I will not shut my mouth, or hide my light under a bushel, but I will "open wide" my mouth that he may fill it (Psalm 81:10), that others might be edified by the light thereof.  When I feel prompted by the spirit, who am I to refrain?  Our experience is not for our edification alone, but for the edification of many, unless otherwise prompted to refrain and keep sacred events for your private edification.

 

I rarely share my own spiritual experiences, for that reason, and for the reason that I don't have a desire to manipulate people's emotions via my experiences of God. I don't believe that is their purpose.

 

If you choose to keep private your experiences, that is your privilege, but allow me the privilege to "make known his deeds" in my heart.

 

Is it manipulating of me to say that I know God lives?  Is that an underhanded, deceptive, and abusive tactic?  If so, then all of the prophets from the beginning are master manipulators.  I am sorry you feel so towards me, but my conscience is clear.  To condemn the honest testimony of God as manipulative, would be to call good evil.

Edited December 28, 2014 by pogi

[saemo]

Pogi, I'm not telling you what you should believe or think. I also don't believe LDS know how to employ reason. That is my own experience and observation. I also know lds get upset when challenged with reason. Not so much brittle, but delicate. People share their experiences for their own reasons. I do not hide, and can easily say with conviction that Christ is Lord and King. My own personal experiences are mine. Personal, close to my heart, and not for just anyone.

[pogi]

I also don't believe LDS know how to employ reason.

 

"It is comforting to think that those who disagree with us do so because they are unreasonable and possibly evil. If we can simply and categorically dismiss those who oppose us, it relieves us of the burden of having to re-examine our own beliefs in the light of new information. It allows us to blindly bull forward secure in the knowledge that we are right.

 

Unfortunately, the people who disagree with us probably feel the same way, only in the other direction.

 

Everybody is different. We grow up with different cultures and different experiences, and those cultures and experiences shape our perceptions of the world in different ways. And different perceptions of the world often lead to different conclusions about matters of substance. A woman raised in Peru may have very different views on the issue of the role of women in society than would a woman raised in Russia. Despite this possible difference, both women may still be reasonable and well-intentioned. There is nothing inherent in the difference of opinion that means one or the other must be unreasonable and of ill intent. No matter how disparate the opinions may be, reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance."

 

I also know lds get upset when challenged with reason.

 

Perhaps this says more about you and your approach then anything.  You cannot categorically dismiss an entire people of being unreasonable and "manipulative" and expect healthy dialogue.  It is human nature (not just Mormon nature) to become defensive when attacked.  Learn how to dialogue respectfully and you will see that we are a reasonable people.

Edited December 28, 2014 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

Pogi, I'm not telling you what you should believe or think. I also don't believe LDS know how to employ reason. That is my own experience and observation. I also know lds get upset when challenged with reason. Not so much brittle, but delicate. People share their experiences for their own reasons. I do not hide, and can easily say with conviction that Christ is Lord and King. My own personal experiences are mine. Personal, close to my heart, and not for just anyone.

Of all things, the theology and doctrines of the LDS Church are most logical and reasonable. That's why I as a former atheist, who relied on logic and reason in assessing claims of truth, became a Latter-day Saint in the first place. Couldn't disagree with you more...

[pogi]

oops

 

Edited December 28, 2014 by pogi

[saemo]

"It is comforting to think that those who disagree with us do so because they are unreasonable and possibly evil. If we can simply and categorically dismiss those who oppose us, it relieves us of the burden of having to re-examine our own beliefs in the light of new information. It allows us to blindly bull forward secure in the knowledge that we are right.

Unfortunately, the people who disagree with us probably feel the same way, only in the other direction.

Everybody is different. We grow up with different cultures and different experiences, and those cultures and experiences shape our perceptions of the world in different ways. And different perceptions of the world often lead to different conclusions about matters of substance. A woman raised in Peru may have very different views on the issue of the role of women in society than would a woman raised in Russia. Despite this possible difference, both women may still be reasonable and well-intentioned. There is nothing inherent in the difference of opinion that means one or the other must be unreasonable and of ill intent. No matter how disparate the opinions may be, reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance."

Perhaps this says more about you and your approach then anything. You cannot categorically dismiss an entire people of being unreasonable and "manipulative" and expect healthy dialogue. It is human nature (not just Mormon nature) to become defensive when attacked. Learn how to dialogue respectfully and you will see that we are a reasonable people.

I'd say it is you who is projecting. I can recognize manipulation as that. I can also recognize the intent of the person. So yeah, those passive aggressive manipulations on Christmas Day from Mormon relatives, I must remember, they're done with good intent! All is well. I hold know ill will towards you Pogi.

Though, it is true, I cannot see that in religious discussion there is never a moment where a LDS member stops trying to manipulate either the persons or conversation. I don't know that it could be stopped, as it seems ingrained into the fabric of Mormon culture. But you should realize, my memories of youth testimony meetings where we sat in a circle and everyone, one by one, was required to bear their testimony, is the root of my impression of manipulation. I had no testimony to give, and so faked it in order to not be viewed as the outsider who has something wrong with them. I felt very manipulated, and as though a violence had been done to my inner most conscience. Granted, I cannot help but view most interactions with LDS as seeking to continue that violence.

Edited December 28, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

Of all things, the theology and doctrines of the LDS Church are most logical and reasonable. That's why I as a former atheist, who relied on logic and reason in assessing claims of truth, became a Latter-day Saint in the first place. Couldn't disagree with you more...

Ha! We should discuss sometime but not on this forum. The watchdogs of the faith would never allow a genuine conversation. You'd be the persecuted, I the persecutor. We must stick to our rolls here.

[JLHPROF]

Of all things, the theology and doctrines of the LDS Church are most logical and reasonable. That's why I as a former atheist, who relied on logic and reason in assessing claims of truth, became a Latter-day Saint in the first place. Couldn't disagree with you more...

 

My favorite thing about Mormonism and the restored gospel...

The gospel doesn't rely on "incomprehensible" to make its case.

[pogi]

Ha! We should discuss sometime but not on this forum. The watchdogs of the faith would never allow a genuine conversation. You'd be the persecuted, I the persecutor. We must stick to our rolls here.

 

Perhaps you will find that your approach here would be more effective when you try reasoning with us as to why you are right instead of why we are wrong. Build on common beliefs, and respect the perspective of others.  You will find that this sort of genuine conversation might actually win friends and influence people.  Do not follow the approach of the politicians of today who use  divisive rhetoric and polarizing tones, who dismiss the entire right or left as "unreasonable", and who, instead of using reason to defend their position, choose instead to attack their opponents.  You see, it is really easy to attack the history of any church.  It is really easy to throw around scriptures that seem to contradict the faith of other people.  It is really easy to dismiss the perspective of others, when you have a totally different perspective.  But where will that get you?  Nowhere!  You will become as effective as the US congress!  It only creates divisiveness and builds defensive barriers that cannot be penetrated with any amount of reason.  When reason is used as a weapon to tear down instead of a tool to build, it becomes ineffective.  Help us to see your perspective instead of dismissing ours. 

Edited December 28, 2014 by pogi

[saemo]

Perhaps you will find that your approach here would be more effective when you try reasoning with us as to why you are right instead of why we are wrong. Build on common beliefs, and respect the perspective of others.  You will find that this sort of genuine conversation might actually win friends and influence people.  Do not follow the approach of the politicians of today who use  divisive rhetoric and polarizing tones, who dismiss the entire right or left as "unreasonable", and who, instead of using reason to defend their position, choose instead to attack their opponents.  You see, it is really easy to attack the history of any church.  It is really easy to throw around scriptures that seem to contradict the faith of other people.  It is really easy to dismiss the perspective of others, when you have a totally different perspective.  But where will that get you?  Nowhere!  You will become as effective as the US congress!  It only creates divisiveness and builds defensive barriers that cannot be penetrated with any amount of reason.  When reason is used as a weapon to tear down instead of a tool to build, it becomes ineffective.  Help us to see your perspective instead of dismissing ours.

I have tried both approaches here and have not found successful dialogue with either. The only thing Mormons will accept here is syncreticism, pluralism and relativism. The only commonality I see between us is faith, but then that faith is in different things. But you should understand, I prefer the commonality of having faith to not, so it is not a small commonality to my view.

[thesometimesaint]

Fly's and vinegar.