Apologetic attacks

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That's possible.  Such things happen.

I always find it best to assume malice on the other person's part.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That's possible.  Such things happen.

I think, if anything, that's most likely. 

[Mystery Meat]

For the sake of being fair, I think it is possible that Scott did not intentionally misrepresent John's position (or even lie). Nailing down John's positions is about as easy as nailing down jello to a wall. He did in fact once say this on Facebook: "All I can say is… if God and Jesus really do exist… I believe that they have a lot of ‘splaining to do." and in his letter to his stake president he listed the following as one of his issues that they discussed:

"My doubts about the existence of God."

Maybe John does firmly believe in God now. Maybe he wants to believe in God, but has doubts. Maybe he just took offense at Scott's comments and wanted to make a stink. Any of these seem possible based on past actions. But I don't think it is fair to jump on Scott for what saying John doesn't believe in God, when John himself has said things that could leave someone with that impression.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I think, if anything, that's most likely. 

Even if it were true, it just seems pretty crappy to use it as a bludgeon with which to beat Dehlin.

[stemelbow]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Even if it were true, it just seems pretty crappy to use it as a bludgeon with which to beat Dehlin.

Beat Dehlin?  I thought he mentioned that Dehlin didn't believe in God.  Are atheists beaten by believers if they point out he/she doesn't believe in God? 

I think it crappy he claimed Dehlin doesn't believe in God if Dehlin does, but I wouldn't say there was anything near a beating because of the mishap. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

For the sake of being fair, I think it is possible that Scott did not intentionally misrepresent John's position (or even lie). Nailing down John's positions is about as easy as nailing down jello to a wall. He did in fact once say this on Facebook: "All I can say is… if God and Jesus really do exist… I believe that they have a lot of ‘splaining to do." and in his letter to his stake president he listed the following as one of his issues that they discussed:

"My doubts about the existence of God."

Maybe John does firmly believe in God now. Maybe he wants to believe in God, but has doubts. Maybe he just took offense at Scott's comments and wanted to make a stink. Any of these seem possible based on past actions. But I don't think it is fair to jump on Scott for what saying John doesn't believe in God, when John himself has said things that could leave someone with that impression.

I agree.

Also, if you are doing a presentation highlighting how people have misrepresented the Church beliefs/positions/publications, I think it would be wise to not start by misrepresenting the beliefs/positions/publications of those same people.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Beat Dehlin?  I thought he mentioned that Dehlin didn't believe in God.  Are atheists beaten by believers if they point out he/she doesn't believe in God? 

I think it crappy he claimed Dehlin doesn't believe in God if Dehlin does, but I wouldn't say there was anything near a beating because of the mishap. 

As I said, I disliked the tone of Gordon's address, which I thought was overly aggressive and hostile, so yeah, he pretty much did beat up on Dehlin, IMO.

[stemelbow]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

As I said, I disliked the tone of Gordon's address, which I thought was overly aggressive and hostile, so yeah, he pretty much did beat up on Dehlin, IMO.

I'm not talking tone, I thought you indicated by using what he perceived to be Dehlin's lack of belief in God to beat Dehlin.  But all I can see is that he mentioned twice that Dehlin didn't believe in God.

Not trying to be difficult here, but this seems to lie in the area of the problems we face in our discussions.  Stating one's belief is seen as beating a man is really odd to me.  Difficult for me to understand.  I'm really not sure how tone would cause, at least in the case, a mere description of belief as overly aggressive and hostile. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I'm not talking tone, I thought you indicated by using what he perceived to be Dehlin's lack of belief in God to beat Dehlin.  But all I can see is that he mentioned twice that Dehlin didn't believe in God.

Not trying to be difficult here, but this seems to lie in the area of the problems we face in our discussions.  Stating one's belief is seen as beating a man is really odd to me.  Difficult for me to understand.  I'm really not sure how tone would cause, at least in the case, a mere description of belief as overly aggressive and hostile. 

I just mean that it was clearly meant to discredit Dehlin, but, yes, it's worse if it isn't true. "Beating him up" is probably an overstatement, but I found Scott's tone and approach of personal attack pretty distasteful. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not talking tone, I thought you indicated by using what he perceived to be Dehlin's lack of belief in God to beat Dehlin.  But all I can see is that he mentioned twice that Dehlin didn't believe in God.

Not trying to be difficult here, but this seems to lie in the area of the problems we face in our discussions.  Stating one's belief is seen as beating a man is really odd to me.  Difficult for me to understand.  I'm really not sure how tone would cause, at least in the case, a mere description of belief as overly aggressive and hostile. 

I think that Scott's claim that Dehlin doesn't believe in God (as well as Scott's claims about MS) were meant to discredit him.  Unfortunately, he misrepresented both Dehlin and MS just before launching into the body of his presentation in which he is trying to claim that Dehlin and others are misrepresenting the Church.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I just mean that it was clearly meant to discredit Dehlin, but, yes, it's worse if it isn't true. "Beating him up" is probably an overstatement, but I found Scott's tone and approach of personal attack pretty distasteful. 

Alright.  I don't see his part regarding Dehlin as containing any personal attack at all. 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Beat Dehlin?  I thought he mentioned that Dehlin didn't believe in God.  Are atheists beaten by believers if they point out he/she doesn't believe in God? 

I think it crappy he claimed Dehlin doesn't believe in God if Dehlin does, but I wouldn't say there was anything near a beating because of the mishap. 

Well, don't you think the label of Atheist has a very negative association?  It brings along with it the baggage of blasphemy and apostasy, and all kinds of negative talk from over the years.  I think its a pretty strong to characterize someone that way in the church, even though I personally don't associate that as a negative thing anymore, I know of many people who treat it as a slur.  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Alright.  I don't see his part regarding Dehlin as containing any personal attack at all. 

Then we'll have to disagree. If it wasn't meant to be personal, he wouldn't have mentioned Dehlin or his beliefs.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that Scott's claim that Dehlin doesn't believe in God (as well as Scott's claims about MS) were meant to discredit him.  Unfortunately, he misrepresented both Dehlin and MS just before launching into the body of his presentation in which he is trying to claim that Dehlin and others are misrepresenting the Church.

Okee dokes.  I'm still unsure his description of MS can be considered misrepresentation, and thus question whether it can be said to be used to discredit him. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Okee dokes.  I'm still unsure his description of MS can be considered misrepresentation, and thus question whether it can be said to be used to discredit him. 

And Dehlin, Runnels, Snuffer probably don't consider their statements to be misrepresentations of church teachings and publications.  At some point the "misrepresenting" and claims of misrepresentation become futile.

[juliann]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 Scott also says the he knows Dehlin "personally, and to have had many conversations with me [Dehlin]".  Dehlin denies this, saying they've had some conversations but nothing that constitutes knowing him personally, nor anything that suggests that they had any personal interactions, much at all. 

I'm not a fan of Scott saying Dehlin doesn't believe in God when that's not been Dehlin's position.  I'm not a fan of Scott claiming to know him personally and that they've had many personal conversations.  

Sigh. Dehlin used to be on the FAIR  elist. That should give you a clue about the credibility of Dehlin's protests (who then responded in typical fashion by mocking Scott's hair as a "comb over.")

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, don't you think the label of Atheist has a very negative association?  It brings along with it the baggage of blasphemy and apostasy, and all kinds of negative talk from over the years.  I think its a pretty strong to characterize someone that way in the church, even though I personally don't associate that as a negative thing anymore, I know of many people who treat it as a slur.  

I guess.  I've probably trained myself more to not see it as a negative. 

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And Dehlin, Runnels, Snuffer probably don't consider their statements to be misrepresentations of church teachings and publications.  At some point the "misrepresenting" and claims of misrepresentation become futile.

And I'm fine with that.  I don't see the need to get overly defensive with any particularly criticism claiming misrepresentation.  I too did not really appreciate Scott's presentation mostly because of the concern of misrepresentation.  It's far too dismissive. 

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Then we'll have to disagree. If it wasn't meant to be personal, he wouldn't have mentioned Dehlin or his beliefs.

I dont' know beliefs constitute one's position.  But, with that said, I agree in part, in that I don't support the notion of identifying groups, describe them in a facile way and then suggest misrepresentation at every turn.  there's a better way to approach it. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Sigh. Dehlin used to be on the FAIR  elist. That should give you a clue about the credibility of Dehlin's protests (who then responded in typical fashion by mocking Scott's hair as a "comb over.")

Does being on FAIR's elist suggest they knew each other personally?  What even Dehlin describes as their interaction, I could see someone claiming to know another personally based on that description.  The many conversations might a stretch.  But, that could total 10, I suppose, and still feel like many to Scott.  Whatever the case, I don't see Scott's description as anything more than possible exaggeration--certainly not an attack, smear, or doing harmful things to Dehlin. 

I didn't see any discussion about how one's hair looks. 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Except the statement from Dehlin doesn't suggest, he believes God could exist, but he does not believe God does exist.  He only says he first part--that he thinks God could exist.  And he does say, I consider myself a believer in God, which argues against Scott's characterization of his not believing in God. 

It should also be pointed out the context of Gordon's claim. 

He is a defender of the LDS faith talking to a group of LDS.  In such a situation, would it be implied that he wasn't referring to the philosophical concept of a "god" (or "gods"), but that the context might imply more specifically the LDS God (the one with a body of flesh and bone, a proclivity for specific commandments and ordinances, a preference for certain groups of people and religions over another, a specific flow-charted plan for all humans to become like Him etc.)?

If Gordon had been more specific and instead of saying "He has long believed there is no god" he had said "Dehlin rejects the LDS concept of God, and instead professes a vague hope in the possibility of a "driving force" or "power" without any specific form or behavior", would it really be that different to an LDS audience?

I suspect the point of Gordon's comment was to let the audience know that Dehlin has broken away from the Church and its doctrines at the most basic, fundamental level.  Whether he is open to some other concept of God or religion is just an interesting footnote.

Ultimately, Dehlin's response seems to be "Hey, how dare you say I don't believe in god, when I just don't believe in your god!"

 

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by cinepro

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It should also be pointed out the context of Gordon's claim. 

He is a defender of the LDS faith talking to a group of LDS.  In such a situation, would it be implied that he wasn't referring to the philosophical concept of a "god" (or "gods"), but that the context might imply more specifically the LDS God (the one with a body of flesh and bone, a proclivity for specific commandments and ordinances, a preference for certain groups of people and religions over another, a specific flow-charted plan for all humans to become like Him etc.)?

If Gordon had been more specific and instead of saying "He has long believed there is no god" he had said "Dehlin rejects the LDS concept of God, and instead professes a vague hope in the possibility of a "driving force" or "power" without any specific form or behavior", would it really be that different to an LDS audience?

I suspect the point of Gordon's comment was to let the audience know that Dehlin has broken away from the Church and its doctrines at the most basic, fundamental level.  Whether he is open to some other concept of God or religion is an interesting footnote. 

Ultimately, Dehlin's response seems to be "Hey, how dare you say I don't believe in god, when I just don't believe in your god!"

 

 

 

What you describe would have been an important clarification, especially since Scott's presentation is all about defending the church against alleged misrepresentation.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I guess.  I've probably trained myself more to not see it as a negative. 

I grew up when and where the atheists I knew were highly educated and thoughtful people and definitely were not so in rebellion or because it was popular, though some did like to point out how much braver it was to live without the crutch of faith.  It is a neutral term for me.  It is how they treat beliefs, their own and others that I judge (do they show thought, respect, breadth and depth?).  Scott Gordon is, I believe, around my age.  I have no clue if he grew up in a religiously diversified environment, but he has certainly been living in one for decades.  He is a professor and many of his colleagues are likely agnostic or atheists.  It seems appropriate, imo, to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was using the term as description, not prejorative.

[jkwilliams]

I've had a bit of an epiphany. I tried to listen to all of Scott's presentation, but I finally realized that I just can't get worked up about any of this anymore. Scott's presentation--as much as I saw skipping around--was passionate and polemical, and I honestly can't imagine feeling that way about apologetics or criticism at this point in my life. I suppose in my earlier years I saw apologetics as defending the legitimacy of my faith, but it's really not that at all. Faith is faith, and no amount of archaeology or textual analysis or whatever is anything more than ancillary to one's feelings and spiritual beliefs. I don't think I ever was at a point when I wanted to get people to lose faith in the church, but I did lash out mostly because I was hurt and angry at where my life had gone and why. Mostly, I think I wanted to feel like my beliefs and choices had good reasons behind them, but even that doesn't matter anymore. People who thought my conclusions about the church were dead wrong 10 years ago still think so, and arguing about it has only reinforced to some that I'm somewhere on the scale between deceived and evil. So, again, what other people think is of no consequence to me. 

I still find Mormonism fascinating, but there's no passion anymore. The idea that conversations on a message board might have eternal consequences for anyone would have seemed a bit far-fetched to me when I was a believer, but now the thought is just absurd. I've seen friends leave the church, and one friend go back to church. Those who have left are doing fine, as is my friend who went back. I have friends who are currently trying to navigate a faith crisis, and I feel passionately about helping people avoid some of the painful mistakes I made that hurt me and my family. But I feel like I don't have a dog in the fight anymore. I don't care whether they leave the church or stay.

I know this sounds like I'm personalizing this, and I guess I am. But my main point is that, when you step back and look at it, the rancor on both sides isn't worth it. If you have enemies based on your religious beliefs, you're doing something wrong. Of course, it does help when you really don't give a crap anymore.

[Jeanne]

It seems like no matter whatever point that Scott was trying to put across, it could have been done without being so personal about it.  Overall, I think the whole thing is kind of sad and lacks human decency.