Wishing for answers

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I think you misunderstand him.

I think (I could be wrong) that he means the questions are not being asked in good faith. The definition of good faith is "honesty or sincerity of intention."

smac97 can clarify as he sees fit.

Yes, DB misunderstood.  I meant that his questions are not being asked in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, salgare said:

For example, when did FAIR/FairMormon switch over from a critics view as a defense against a simple two way split (the old Chapel Mormon, Internet Mormon) to now supporting a wide spectrum of belief?

Could you clarifywhat you mean by "a critic's view as a defense against a simple two way split" because it is confusing and my closest guess of what you mean never resembled FM's approach since I became involved 15 years or so ago.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, DB misunderstood.  I meant that his questions are not being asked in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.

 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You ask for a CFR to my statement that Church leaders could answer these questions if they chose?  etc etc etc

OK, it was the man in the mirror.  Your friend is using the tried and tested anitMormon technique of  spewing forth hysterical ranting and raving, assertions, paranoid mind reading, and breathless  speculation about the evil Mormon empire and those Darth Vader leaders.

It is impossible to respond or reason with someone who uses the hysterical "melt down"  technique. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by cdowis

[RevTestament]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is my understanding that the Church teaches that the man "that reproveth in the gate" is a reference to religious leaders.  See, e.g., this article by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for your reply.

Being that Isaiah makes it quite clear this is a reference to the BOM, I am quite doubtful that it has any application to ancient Jewish leaders:

And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book...

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Why???

Some observations and reasons that come to mind:

1. It is not good to take on approaches to spiritual healing that are not scripturally supported (D&C 46:7, “But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils”).

2. It is not good to condition spiritual healing and well-being on one’s own terms.

3. It is not good to base and condition one’s spiritual healing on the maturation and willingness of others.

4. The gospel is a simple story; the path through a fallen world of paradoxes and contradictions.

[salgare]

36 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've been quoting Kuhn for decades, from my first publication in Dialogue, several times and at great length in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon.  Indeed, Paradigms Crossed in 7/2, (1995) which I linked, makes a detailed case that Alma 32 and Kuhn express the same epistemology.  And I've quoted him in Sunstone, in the Interpreter, in my Occasional Paper on Margaret Barker, in my FAIRMormon essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets... my use of Kuhn is a bit of a cliche, if not a joke to some people.  What shocked me was that two successive editors at Sunstone admitted to me that they hadn't read Kuhn, which was particularly galling when one published an essay criticizing my use of Kuhn. (Shouldn't you know what you are talking about?)   And there is a particularly lame essay on the web purporting to shoot down my use, which, I replied to when it was first published by posting a one word assessment, "Sheesh..."  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most influential books of the 20th century.  I find the book wonderful and endlessly relevant.  My copy is very worn, marked, and dog-eared.

Margaret Barker refers to him here, in the context of Biblical scholarship.

http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2012/11/by-margaret-barker-what-do-i-say.html

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thank you Kevin for this response.  It is because of Mark, Robert and likely you with out me remembering the name and this Alama 32 association that I have been very intrigued with philosophy of which I had no previous contact.  For my own personal spiritual journey, I've started to pursue this and intend to continue.  I started here and became addicted to the thinking with the very first lesson showing the paradox's in a simple example of what is right and wrong.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

I watched the whole series with great interest.

My comments here at MDDB may seem negative towards nuanced Mormonism.  What my negativism is about is it is almost opposite of the church I grew up in and IMO is going to be totally foreign to the majority of active, correlated Mormons.

I wrote a letter/essay to my children highlighting what I saw as the various eras of Mormonism.  In a nutshell not a lot, doctrinal wise, change from JS death to well into 50's (end of the Grand Generations time).  Then what I called the BRM years ... the Baby Boomer and their children's years.  Heavy correlation coming on during this era with it coming into full bloom during the X generation and now what I see as nuanced Mormonism being the era of the millennials and beyond.  The rapid acceleration of change over time being non-linear and going hockey stick on a graph from 2000 on and currently having three or more generations across these eras (hence IMO the need for secrecy and mixed messages from the Church).

Is the Church being transparent in where this is going?  Who's driving this bus?  Realize my objections are not towards doctrines over these eras, or where they may lead in the future.  My concern is for my grandchildren tied into an organized religion that IMO sold out to capitalism, and how this is going to effect my children caught in the middle of an upbringing in fundamentalism/BRMism from their father to this brave new world.  A lot of potential pain lies ahead for the likes of my children and how they might adjust to this new found "diversity"

[consiglieri]

41 minutes ago, cdowis said:

OK, it was the man in the mirror.  Your friend is using the tried and tested anitMormon technique of  spewing forth hysterical ranting and raving, assertions, paranoid mind reading, and breathless  speculation about the evil Mormon empire and those Darth Vader leaders.

It is impossible to respond or reason with someone who uses the hysterical "melt down"  technique. 

If you are talking about Bill Reel, my experience has been that he is a reasonable sort who can be dealt with most effectively by engaging him honestly.

Like me, Bill has already been down the apologetic road.

He knows the pat-answers and side-stepping that so frequently parade as "answers."

All he wants is honesty.

The question is whether we will be able to be as honest with Bill as he is with us.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, DB misunderstood.  I meant that his questions are not being asked in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you ever tire of telepathically declaring others are not asking questions in good faith as an excuse for dodging the actual issues?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, DB misunderstood.  I meant that his questions are not being asked in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why question someones intentions in their post?  It never seems to result in productive dialogue around the topic being discussed.  A more respectful action would be to not participate in those posts that you don't think are being asked in good faith.   

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why question someones intentions in their post?  It never seems to result in productive dialogue around the topic being discussed.  A more respectful action would be to not participate in those posts that you don't think are being asked in good faith.   

Of course no one here is a mind-reader. By the same token posters here do a have a reputation. Some good some not so good. Kinda like the "honest" question "Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice".

[mfbukowski]

Fergitabout it

Same old stuff.  Sigh.

Edited April 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Of course no one here is a mind-reader. By the same token posters here do a have a reputation. Some good some not so good. Kinda like the "honest" question "Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice".

Indeed. Any question that appears to be based on an a priori assumption that has never been definitively established is likely not being asked in good faith.

And in the interest of prudence and "being wise as serpents yet harmless as doves" we all of us are entitled to evaluate the intent with which a question is being posed.

Furthermore, this is a discussion board. Any question, opinion, assertion that is posted here is subject to scrutiny and evaluation. It's the nature of what goes on here, as I understand it.

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed. Any question that appears to be based on an a priori assumption that has never been definitively established is likely not being asked in good faith.

And in the interest of prudence and "being wise as serpents yet harmless as doves" we all of us are entitled to evaluate the intent with which a question is being posed.

Furthermore, this is a discussion board. Any question, opinion, assertion that is posted here is subject to scrutiny and evaluation. It's the nature of what goes on here, as I understand it.

 

You have every right to ask that kind of a question, I just don't think its constructive for the dialogue, or respectful to the person.  You can judge the value of the person's arguments without writing a post questioning the person's sincerity.  

When you attack the person's motives, rather than engage in the discussion it side tracks the discussion.  Some people use this tactic intentionally to divert from the topic.  I just don't understand why this is even necessary, why not just move along without questioning the person's motives.  

[pogi]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

That said they are my sincere questions and would be faith promoting for me.

You keep saying that your questions are sincere, and I generally give people the benefit of the doubt.  I have no problems with sincere and honest questions that have no ulterior motive other than faithful inquiry.  But how do you expect your questions to be perceived as "sincere", when you claim to already have the answers to most of them?   

You said:

Quote

I feel I have the answer to many of these for myself.  My issue is the Brethren like to stand back and say "Gone are the days when we brush people off and give simple answers" and yet that is exactly what they do. 

Again, to me, this does not sound like sincere and honest inquiry, it sounds more like finger pointing.  In essence you are saying to the brethren, rather, about the brethren (publicly, while they are unable to defend or explain themselves) that they have created an expectation and are failing to meet it.  In other words, you think they have intentionally created the expectation that anyone can ask any question at any time, and the brethren should be willing to respond transparently to any and all personal questions - but you would prefer over the pulpit, or in some public and official way.  If you were sincere, I think you would recognize that is not what they were really saying. If you were sincere, I think you would know that is not realistic in the least. 

As I have already said, it doesn't appear that you are looking for a private answer to your personal questions.  Even if your answers were given privately, it seems your intent would be to broadcast it to the world.  Your motive seems to be spelled out here:

Quote

If they answered these questions, the entire way general membership framed "What is the Church"  What is my testimony" and " What is a prophet and what should I expect and not expect from him and other leaders" would have to shift dramatically.

 These are not a sincere questions of private inquiry.  It appears to be a manipulative attempt at a paradigm shift.

In essence you are saying, "answer my questions.  If you don't, then you are liars and are brushing me off.  If you do, then I win, and there will be a major paradigm shift in the church, wether that is what you feel is right or not."  

Even if your questions are sincere, surely you can see that they will not be perceived that way when they are framed like that.

 

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You have every right to ask that kind of a question, I just don't think its constructive for the dialogue, or respectful to the person.  You can judge the value of the person's arguments without writing a post questioning the person's sincerity.  

When you attack the person's motives, rather than engage in the discussion it side tracks the discussion.  Some people use this tactic intentionally to divert from the topic.  I just don't understand why this is even necessary, why not just move along without questioning the person's motives.  

"Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice" is known as a loaded question. There is no answer that doesn't call the person answering into question.

Edited April 8, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Elder Ballard just told us in the CES address that he goes to historians when he has historical questions. Why isn't that that the answer to your historical questions? I truly don't get this. It is one thing to have questions and concerns. I have plenty, especially when it comes to women, but it would never occur to me to ask an untrained ecclesiastical leader to give me a history lesson or come to a conclusion that requires a  trained historian with access to a lot of documents?

So what would it look like if you simplified those questions, changed the tone, asked the right people, and accepted the responses even though you don't like what you hear? Isn't that the ultimate question? 

I guess some people think that those that are called by a General Authority got the call because they are the most knowledgeable in every subject out there.  I see no reason to believe that a GA is called any different than those who are called to be a bishop, Sunday School teacher or primary teacher.  There is no test of knowledge one has to pass to become eligible for a calling.  They just need to be worthy and willing to accept the call.  Perhaps the calling does not mean they have to be able to answer the hundreds of different types of questions members or critics might come up with.  Many questions come from people who are simply antagonistic and really do not care to know the truth of the matter but simply some of the content of the answers they receive for their own antagonistic purposes.  When I read the 23 questions from DB, those types of questions are not questions I would expect to find from a sincere, struggling member of the Church but someone who is probably more antagonistic.  A GA might answer some of them to the satisfaction of the questioner but certainly not all of them and even if they were all answered, there is nothing to suggest that the person would be brought even 1% closer to Christ and his gospel as a result of it.  I suppose those 23 questions are important to DB but are they really the most important questions he has?  Perhaps reducing his questions to just 4 or 5 might be a little better than giving a laundry list of issues of which many center on gay issues.

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why question someones intentions in their post? 

Because when the absence of good faith is apparent at the outset, the likelihood of a useful, healthy discussion is very low.

And my criticisms were about more than the apparent absence of good faith.

Quote

It never seems to result in productive dialogue around the topic being discussed.  

The absence of good faith generally precludes productive dialogue.

Moreover, my post explains why I am not responding to DB's "questions."  He likes to accuse church leaders of not answering him, so I thought it would be helpful for him to understand why I am not answering him, either.  It's not because I am afraid of his "questions."  It's because I think them lacking in merit and not deserving of attention because they are not asked in good faith,

because they are loaded in such a way as to impute guilt or wrongdoing,

because they are based on highly questionable assumptions,

because they have been presented in a spirit of acrimony and accusation, and not in the spirit of seeking truth and the Spirit,

because they are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium,

because they are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information,

because they are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions",

because there is no evidence of a previous good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith",

because they are intellectually dishonest in that they do not engage or address the meaningful information that is already readily available and responsive,

because these "questions" instead disregard such resources, pretend they don't exist or that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed,

because good intent and motives matter,

because sincerity matters,

because good faith and good will matter,

because willingness to study matters,

because willingness to engage and evaluate reasoning and evidence from "the best books" matters,

because willingness to seek guidance from the Spirit matters,

because willingness to have faith, even a seed of faith, even when we "do not know the meaning of all things," matters,

because willingness to be patient and persevere in our study and understanding and application of the Restored Gospel matters, and

because willingness to listen to prophets and apostles, even when their counsel goes against what the World is saying, matters.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 8, 2016 by smac97

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Why question someones intentions in their post?

Because if you don't, you might be played the fool. 

DBMormon is questioning the intentions of the brethren (how much money they make, etc.), why does he get a pass?

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You have every right to ask that kind of a question, I just don't think its constructive for the dialogue, or respectful to the person.  You can judge the value of the person's arguments without writing a post questioning the person's sincerity.  

When you attack the person's motives, rather than engage in the discussion it side tracks the discussion.  Some people use this tactic intentionally to divert from the topic.  I just don't understand why this is even necessary, why not just move along without questioning the person's motives.  

If I were to approach you and publicly ask you "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?", there wouldn't be much of a chance at "constructive" dialogue.  That's because the question isn't designed to elicit constructive dialogue, but rather to accuse, to defame, to provoke to anger, to insult.

So with respect, I think there are times when the impropriety of the "question" can and should be called out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Do you ever tire of telepathically declaring others are not asking questions in good faith as an excuse for dodging the actual issues?

With respect, I decline to enter into discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

"Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice" is known as a loaded question. There is no answer that doesn't call the person answering into question.

I agree that your example of the spouse beater is a loaded question.  Are you saying that Scott's question about this post not being of "good faith" is also a loaded question?  In which case, are you agreeing with me that it doesn't add to the discussion in a productive way to use loaded questions like that.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because if you don't, you might be played the fool. 

DBMormon is questioning the intentions of the brethren (how much money they make, etc.), why does he get a pass?

Who's getting played the fool?  I'm saying the better response is just to not engage in the thread if you don't like the topic or believe the OP is of questionable value, why open up a conversation about the person's motivations.  

Get a pass????  That has nothing to do with my comment about constructive and respectful dialogue.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that your example of the spouse beater is a loaded question.  Are you saying that Scott's question about this post not being of "good faith" is also a loaded question?  In which case, are you agreeing with me that it doesn't add to the discussion in a productive way to use loaded questions like that.  

I didn't ask a question about a post "not being of [sic] good faith." I expressed agreement with smac97 that questions posed in the OP are not asked in good faith.

 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If I were to approach you and publicly ask you "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?", there wouldn't be much of a chance at "constructive" dialogue.  That's because the question isn't designed to elicit constructive dialogue, but rather to accuse, to defame, to provoke to anger, to insult.

So with respect, I think there are times when the impropriety of the "question" can and should be called out.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm confused, isn't this exactly what you are doing with your questioning the good faith of DBMormon's post?