Rock Waterman Excommunicated

[Scott Lloyd]

Conversion stories (regardless of the faith tradition) have more in common than they have differences. People seem to experience an ineffable and transcendent moment that they interpret as God telling them that the path they've chosen is the right one. 

 

In my opinion, if we look at the Spirit as a means of appreciating sacredness rather than literal messages from a specific being, we make more sense of the experience. We can all appreciate that sacredness, regardless of our specific tradition.

This ignores the fact that many, many times spiritual witnesses are attended by clear and specific direction.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sigh talk about straining at a gnat.....yes Scott, I can think of three maybe four evangelicals who have told me that they read at least part of the Book of Mormon, prayed about it and got a negative answer.

So, to recap:

 

Of the "many" Evangelicals who you say reported having God tell them the Book of Mormon is false, you only have a clear memory of three, perhaps four.

 

Of the four, two were likely engaging in mockery due to the context of the conversation.

 

The other two seemed sincere, you say, but of those two, one is an apostate and the other is married to a Mormon and apparently has an axe to grind, as evidenced by his anti-Mormon "outreach."

 

And you say I'm straining at a gnat?

[Gray]

This ignores the fact that many, many times spiritual witnesses are attended by clear and specific direction.

 

You mean that thoughts accompany transcendent experiences? Yes, I dare say they do. 

[Teancum]

So, to recap:

 

Of the "many" Evangelicals who you say reported having God tell them the Book of Mormon is false, you only have a clear memory of three, perhaps four.

 

Of the four, two were likely engaging in mockery due to the context of the conversation.

 

The other two seemed sincere, you say, but of those two, one is an apostate and the other is married to a Mormon and apparently has an axe to grind, as evidenced by his anti-Mormon "outreach."

 

And you say I'm straining at a gnat?

 

 

I have done my best to give you specifics. I admitted that my initial post engaged in hyperbole.  You can diminish the specifics of what these people claim all you want.   I believe the person married to the Mormon is one of the most sincere truth seekers I know.  I have talked many hours with him and religion and spiritual things.

 

You want to focus on the specific denials on the Book of Mormon test.  That is fair.  I agree EVs can be disingenuous on this one. 

 

However in my opinion the greater issue is the humans of all religious walks claim truths that conflict and believe they have a witness as much and as strong as LDS people do.  They may not state it the same way but they have it.  Thus the conflict at least for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

You mean that thoughts accompany transcendent experiences? Yes, I dare say they do. 

That doesn't quite do justice to what I was getting at.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have done my best to give you specifics. I admitted that my initial post engaged in hyperbole.  You can diminish the specifics of what these people claim all you want.  

You engaged in hyperbole, which by definition is exaggeration for effect. You also said I was "straining a gnat." Well, I was trying to determine how much of an exaggeration there has been. Quite a bit, as it turns out. "Many" ends up being three or four, of which only two are even arguably credible.

 

However in my opinion the greater issue is the humans of all religious walks claim truths that conflict and believe they have a witness as much and as strong as LDS people do.  They may not state it the same way but they have it.  Thus the conflict at least for me.

 

If they don't state it the same way, there is a very real possibility, as Russell pointed out, that they're not even talking about the same thing. Heck, the possibility is there even if they do state it the same way.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

That's a new one.  How does that comport with praying with real intent?

One can pray with real intent to know but not want it to be true.

I know a number of people who opposed Mormonism and read the Book of Mormon to prove us wrong and were converted because the Holy Ghost told them it was true.

[ttribe]

One can pray with real intent to know but not want it to be true.

I know a number of people who opposed Mormonism and read the Book of Mormon to prove us wrong and were converted because the Holy Ghost told them it was true.

 

Seems rather opposite to me, but I won't take a page from Bro. Lloyd's playbook and demand you prove it somehow.

[Teancum]

You engaged in hyperbole, which by definition is exaggeration for effect. You also said I was "straining a gnat." Well, I was trying to determine how much of an exaggeration there has been. Quite a bit, as it turns out. "Many" ends up being three or four, of which only two are even arguably credible.

If they don't state it the same way, there is a very real possibility, as Russell pointed out, that they're not even talking about the same thing. Heck, the possibility is there even if they do state it the same way.

1: I admitted to hyperbole I think twice now. So what more do you want on this? Still as noted, my main point was not as much the Book of Mormon but the general idea that many devote persons believe God is directing them to truth that conflicts with what your claim of truth and the witness thereof is. Did you really not understand this?

2: Every faith system has a language that is unique. So you and apparently Russell think because another person of deep faith does not frame their personal witness in the same language that a Latter-day Saint does that it is inferior or not the same? What do you base this on? Are you arguing the LDS witness is superior to all others?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

One can pray with real intent to know but not want it to be true.

I know a number of people who opposed Mormonism and read the Book of Mormon to prove us wrong and were converted because the Holy Ghost told them it was true.

Following the pattern of Scott's demands how about you give us some detail on this claim. Edited June 17, 2015 by Teancum

[ttribe]

Following the pattern of Scott's demands how about you give us some detail on this claim.

Rise above, my friend, rise above.

[Teancum]

Rise above, my friend, rise above.

I saw your good example after my post. I will try to do better. :-)

[Scott Lloyd]

Seems rather opposite to me, but I won't take a page from Bro. Lloyd's playbook and demand you prove it somehow.

 

 

Rise above, my friend, rise above.

I don't see that I demanded proof so much as expressed reasoned skepticism and perhaps sought clarification. Justifiably so, as it turned out.

 

But you seem to disapprove of that, as though it were wrong to do so. That strikes me as a tad weird.

[ttribe]

I don't see that I demanded proof so much as expressed reasoned skepticism and perhaps sought clarification. Justifiably so, as it turned out.

 

But you seem to disapprove of that, as though it were wrong to do so. That strikes me as a tad weird.

 

You issued a "CFR", Scott.  I think it's weird for you to ask for "references" (obviously some objective evidence) on someone's personal observations; and it's not the first time I've seen you do it.

[ERayR]

You issued a "CFR", Scott.  I think it's weird for you to ask for "references" (obviously some objective evidence) on someone's personal observations; and it's not the first time I've seen you do it.

 

I use a CFR not so much for proof but see where someones POV comes from so I can understand where they are coming from.

[ttribe]

I use a CFR not so much for proof but see where someones POV comes from so I can understand where they are coming from.

 

Then, given it invokes a rule that requires a response or face moderation punishment, it seems you are misusing the tool.  Why not simply ask for clarification instead of resorting to a rule-based effort to force a response to your inquiry?

Edited June 17, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

You issued a "CFR", Scott.  I think it's weird for you to ask for "references" (obviously some objective evidence) on someone's personal observations; and it's not the first time I've seen you do it.

I don't recall issuing a CFR on this. Perhaps I did. Can you pinpoint the post where I did so? (And I hasten to add that this is not a CFR, since that seems to be an issue with you, merely a request for assistance.)

 

Edited to add:

 

I just went back through my recent exchange with Teancum and did not see any instance of my issuing a CFR.

 

Again, it's possible, I suppose, that my memory is failing and that I did do a CFR and missed seeing it just now. But I did make a good-faith effort to find it and did not turn up anything. The invitation is still open for you to pinpoint the specific post where I did so.

 

But in my own defense, I have to say that when I do issue a CFR it is on something that is objectively verifiable or falsifiable. I don't believe I habitually issue CFRs on expressions of personal opinion, though I have seen some do it, and I agree it is wrongheaded to do so, though one can reasonably give a counter-opinion, something along the lines of "I think you would have a difficult time substantiating that."

 

One more addition:

 

If it pertains to "someone's personal observations" as you phrase it, that is, if it is something that one has observed through any the five senses and not merely thought or supposed, it occurs to me that might be something that could be substantiated in response to a CFR. That is to say, if it is some external thing that you have observed, it may possibly (though not necessarily) be accessible for someone else to observe as well, especially if it has been documented. That's what a CFR is, after all, a call for documentation.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Then, given it invokes a rule that requires a response or face moderation punishment, it seems you are misusing the tool.  Why not simply ask for clarification instead of resorting to a rule-based effort to force a response to your inquiry?

 

I will repent of this serious infraction. 

[ttribe]

I don't recall issuing a CFR on this. Perhaps I did. Can you pinpoint the post where I did so? (And I hasten to add that this is not a CFR, since that seems to be an issue with you, merely a request for assistance.)

Well, I must apologize and request your forgiveness.  You are correct, I just went back through the exchange between the two of you and you never actually issued a CFR.  Perhaps I had a false memory recovered (in the spirit of the SRA discussion in another thread).

[sethpayne]

Well, I must apologize and request your forgiveness.  You are correct, I just went back through the exchange between the two of you and you never actually issued a CFR.  Perhaps I had a false memory recovered (in the spirit of the SRA discussion in another thread).

 

Sheesh, ttribe.  What are trying to do?  Start an MDDB moral panic?

 

Oh wait .... SSM already serves that purpose.  

[ttribe]

Sheesh, ttribe.  What are trying to do?  Start an MDDB moral panic?

 

Oh wait .... SSM already serves that purpose.  

 

Gotta stir the pot somehow!

[Scott Lloyd]

Then, given it invokes a rule that requires a response or face moderation punishment, it seems you are misusing the tool.  Why not simply ask for clarification instead of resorting to a rule-based effort to force a response to your inquiry?

The only penalty or "punishment," if you will, is that one must admit his inability to provide the required references. Not all that egregious, as punishments go.

[ttribe]

The only penalty or "punishment," if you will, is that one must admit his inability to provide the required references. Not all that egregious, as punishments go.

 

Okay, well, given the broad statement on this issue in the Board Guidelines (quoted below), it seems there's more than just a forced admission potentially available to the moderation crew (emphasis mine):

 

2. Be respectful of each other. This should be a matter of common sense, but we have a detailed list below of the kind of behavior that won't be tolerated.

• Mocking each others' beliefs
• Judging others
• Personal attacks. You may dispute a member's opinion, but you may not label them for having that opinion.
• Psychoanalyzing others
• Attempting to provoke people
• Posting IRL info about board members
• Profanity and vulgarity
• Pretending to be someone you aren't, namely, posing as an ex-Mormon when you clearly are not. This only leads to feelings of hostility. We will allow inconsistencies in your story to be pointed out for the purpose of protecting anyone here you are trying to deceive.
• Altering members quotes on the board
• Quoting members in your signature without obtaining their permission
• Choosing offensive avatars or signatures
• Copying and pasting material and claiming it as your own or posting anything copyrighted
• Derailing threads with irrelevant or unwanted commentary (i.e. If a discussion is about the nature of the Godhead, don't inject comments like, "There is no God." You can start your own thread about evidences of God's existence.)
• Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post.
• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements
• Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given
• Creating another user name while you are suspended. This will result in being banned permanently
• Creating another user name to send a private message to a member who has blocked you from doing so. You are not entitled to contact anyone who doesn't want to be contacted.
• Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole

Edited June 17, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, well, given the broad statement on this issue in the Board Guidelines (quoted below), it seems there's more than just a forced admission potentially available to the moderation crew (emphasis mine):

Well, if there is an utter refusal either to provide the required references or to admit that one cannot do so, I can see where the moderating team might have a problem with that.

 

Bottom line: I don't see anything wrong with fostering a discussion environment that requires some good-faith effort and a degree of rigor to see that expressions are attended by substance, even in a comparatively informal forum such as this.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Sheesh, ttribe.  What are trying to do?  Start an MDDB moral panic?

 

Oh wait .... SSM already serves that purpose.  

And thus we have here evidence for the belief and theory that every thread on this board sooner or later gets around to being about same-sex "marriage."