Questions on FairMormon's approach

[Calm]

You are right that I did let my (previously admitted) assumption about your knowledge come out in my posts immediately following my opening one.  I shouldn't have posted when as sleep deprived as I am this past night.  I merely reread my first post to confirm my memory of my thought process and I had recently reread a few later ones that had been referred to, but I had forgotten that when I read what I felt was your initial too casual dismissal of the incident, I had let my temper get the better of me and accused you as I did without foundation.

I guess I like to think myself as having better self control than I actually do when I get angry.  It is not something that happens very often so I don't get a lot of practice.  I should not have said what I said.  My apologies again both for saying it and for conveniently forgetting I had said it and not correcting it when I clarified the original post. I should have been more careful and not just read the opening post and relied on HJW's focus (of it appearing that I was claiming you pirated it yourself) as the only problem with my posts.

I am not going to say anymore at this point because I still haven't slept and I can't read even my own posts coherently.  If you feel there is something else I am ignoring or have missed in my own comments, please feel free to point them out.

I will say I can't speak for other FM member's feelings towards you, it is not something I have intimate knowledge of or very relevant to what I do with FM.  If you want to talk to FM leadership, I assume you mean Scott Gordon or John Lynch, if not Juliann.  You have their emails and it would be better to email them directly rather than just speak out here since I believe they don't read the board these days, not sure if John has even ever read or posted on any of the incarnations.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

 

 

  But please know that it is obvious to everyone that both sides go above and beyond the mark in dealing with each other.  That even on a post like this where I attempt to be fair and reasonable, you guys come out swinging.   As if you're looking for blood. 

 

 

I did attempt to have a discussion with you, Bill. Nothing I said warranted such bombastic and angry responses. I understand that you took offense at some of my words and I'm sorry for that but you want to fight. I don't and I am sure I speak for the others. I wish you well.

[rockpond]

I think the past year has signaled a significant shift for Mormon apologetics.  This is just my opinion and some will, of course, disagree.

FM and other LDS apologetic groups have always, as Bill stated, stood behind or to the side of the Church.  These recent addresses by Bushman, Mason, Hardy, and Elder Ballard (to CES) are telling us all what Givens, Dehlin (and no doubt others I am unaware of) have been preaching for a decade and what Bill has been preaching for a few years:  It's time to get in front of the narrative and re-think the way we've defended faith in LDS theology.

I look forward to what the next year will bring from all of these folks.

[UtahTexan]

This may seem simplistic, but......there are core beliefs of the Church.  Accept them, or don't be LDS.  When I was Catholic, I was amazed at how many folks claimed to be Catholic, yet supported abortion.  YOu are simply not Catholic if you support abortion.  So, be something else.  It's ok.  There are denominations out there to satisfy everyone.

We keep seeing threads that are unhappy with this or that.  They dislike this or that.  They are against this or that.

It seems very simple to me.  Be LDS, and all that entails, or don't.  

in 1989, I decided I couldn't.  So, I left.  I left the Church.

 

So, be LDS.  It is amazing.  We have so much to offer.

 

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

This may seem simplistic, but......there are core beliefs of the Church.  Accept them, or don't be LDS.  When I was Catholic, I was amazed at how many folks claimed to be Catholic, yet supported abortion.  YOu are simply not Catholic if you support abortion.  So, be something else.  It's ok.  There are denominations out there to satisfy everyone.

We keep seeing threads that are unhappy with this or that.  They dislike this or that.  They are against this or that.

It seems very simple to me.  Be LDS, and all that entails, or don't.  

in 1989, I decided I couldn't.  So, I left.  I left the Church.

 

So, be LDS.  It is amazing.  We have so much to offer.

 

Yes... too simplistic.

I imagine we could spend many many weeks and pages and pages of threads trying to nail down exactly what the "core beliefsof the Church" are.  And we'd never agree.

[rongo]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

I know the difference between facts/data,  and opinion/interpretation/speculation.Bias in "facts" is evident only in the selection of those facts

Bias is also clearly present in the interpretation of the facts --- what the facts actually mean. 

Opinion is the interpretation of the facts.  It is indeed possible to have an unbiased, exhaustive  selection of ALL the facts.

Weren't you the one who "Yawn."ed? If you really think that "it is indeed possible to have an unbiased, exhaustive selection of ALL the facts," yet you admit that bias "is evident . . . in the selection of those facts," then how can you assure yourself or anyone else that you have been unbiased in the selection of your facts? That doesn't even make sense. How is it "indeed" possible, then?

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I did attempt to have a discussion with you, Bill. Nothing I said warranted such bombastic and angry responses. I understand that you took offense at some of my words and I'm sorry for that but you want to fight. I don't and I am sure I speak for the others. I wish you well.

I have sent you a private message.  All I will say here is repeat that there is an open invitation to see if bridges can be built.

[DBMormon]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

You are right that I did let my (previously admitted) assumption about your knowledge come out in my posts immediately following my opening one.  I shouldn't have posted when as sleep deprived as I am this past night.  I merely reread my first post to confirm my memory of my thought process and I had recently reread a few later ones that had been referred to, but I had forgotten that when I read what I felt was your initial too casual dismissal of the incident, I had let my temper get the better of me and accused you as I did without foundation.

I guess I like to think myself as having better self control than I actually do when I get angry.  It is not something that happens very often so I don't get a lot of practice.  I should not have said what I said.  My apologies again both for saying it and for conveniently forgetting I had said it and not correcting it when I clarified the original post. I should have been more careful and not just read the opening post and relied on HJW's focus (of it appearing that I was claiming you pirated it yourself) as the only problem with my posts.

I am not going to say anymore at this point because I still haven't slept and I can't read even my own posts coherently.  If you feel there is something else I am ignoring or have missed in my own comments, please feel free to point them out.

I will say I can't speak for other FM member's feelings towards you, it is not something I have intimate knowledge of or very relevant to what I do with FM.  If you want to talk to FM leadership, I assume you mean Scott Gordon or John Lynch, if not Juliann.  You have their emails and it would be better to email them directly rather than just speak out here since I believe they don't read the board these days, not sure if John has even ever read or posted on any of the incarnations.

I so appreciate your apology and fully accept it.  The matter is dead as far as I  am concerned.  Having met you and watched and interacted with you on this board I have always appreciated your "Calm"ness and patience.  Having only met you once, I consider you a friend and still do.  God Bless.

Edited August 20, 2016 by DBMormon

[BHodges]

5 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

This may seem simplistic, but......there are core beliefs of the Church.  Accept them, or don't be LDS.  When I was Catholic, I was amazed at how many folks claimed to be Catholic, yet supported abortion.  YOu are simply not Catholic if you support abortion.  So, be something else.  It's ok.  There are denominations out there to satisfy everyone.

We keep seeing threads that are unhappy with this or that.  They dislike this or that.  They are against this or that.

It seems very simple to me.  Be LDS, and all that entails, or don't.  

in 1989, I decided I couldn't.  So, I left.  I left the Church.

 

So, be LDS.  It is amazing.  We have so much to offer.

 

I appreciate the perspective, but I disagree with you. An all-or-nothing approach is especially risky when you look at the span of church history and see that some of the things that seemed so central have decreased in importance while other things have increased. Faith speaks to the present and future while being tethered to the past. Current faith reflects forward and backward. "Bring all the good you have and let us see if we can add to it" is the open invitation of  Mormonism. Not "we have all the good already and you just have to assimilate." 

 

To anyone who hears this kind of invitation, to agree in all things or to leave, I want to say not all church members agree with that view of what you have to do to belong here. You will meet some who do, guaranteed, and it's part of our discipleship to find ways to love them, too. But you don't have to be all or nothing to find truth here and to add your goodness. 

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by BHodges

[DBMormon]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think the past year has signaled a significant shift for Mormon apologetics.  This is just my opinion and some will, of course, disagree.

FM and other LDS apologetic groups have always, as Bill stated, stood behind or to the side of the Church.  These recent addresses by Bushman, Mason, Hardy, and Elder Ballard (to CES) are telling us all what Givens, Dehlin (and no doubt others I am unaware of) have been preaching for a decade and what Bill has been preaching for a few years:  It's time to get in front of the narrative and re-think the way we've defended faith in LDS theology.

I look forward to what the next year will bring from all of these folks.

Thank you 

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, BHodges said:

To anyone who hears this kind of invitation, to agree in all things or to leave, I want to say not all church members agree with that view of what you have to do to belong here. You will meet some who do, guaranteed, and it's part of our discipleship to find ways to love them, too. But you don't have to be all or nothing to find truth here and to add your goodness. 

amen Blair.   Amen

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

amen Blair.   Amen

I know not all agree.  Just like not all "Catholics" agree about abortion...but that does not change the fact that the Catholic Church has stated that those who accept abortion are not following the true Catholic Church.  

Complaints against does not truly mean doctrine has changed.  No matter how many negative folks say "Amen"

 

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

amen Blair.   Amen

And Amen.  Blair's words mean so much to me on a personal level.  Thank you!  I also very much appreciate DB Mormon..for going to great length to build a bridge where my friends and family can still be a part of the whole on any level of faith

Edited August 20, 2016 by Jeanne

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And Amen.  Blair's words mean so much to me on a personal level.  Thank you!

lol...I am a prophet

[BHodges]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I know not all agree.  Just like not all "Catholics" agree about abortion...but that does not change the fact that the Catholic Church has stated that those who accept abortion are not following the true Catholic Church.  

Complaints against does not truly mean doctrine has changed.  No matter how many negative folks say "Amen"

 

CountryBoy, can you point out where "the Catholic Church has stated that those who accept abortion are not following the true Catholic Church"? Particularly examples where the Catholic Church has encouraged such people to leave the church? 

I don't know what you mean by "complaints against does not truly mean doctrine has changed." I'm also confused as to whether you are including me in some group of "negative folks." But I reiterate, you should be extremely cautious about encouraging people to leave the Church because they don't agree with you. 

[UtahTexan]

15 minutes ago, BHodges said:

CountryBoy, can you point out where "the Catholic Church has stated that those who accept abortion are not following the true Catholic Church"? Particularly examples where the Catholic Church has encouraged such people to leave the church? 

I don't know what you mean by "complaints against does not truly mean doctrine has changed." I'm also confused as to whether you are including me in some group of "negative folks." But I reiterate, you should be extremely cautious about encouraging people to leave the Church because they don't agree with you. 

I won't do research for you.  I only know that Bishops were denying the Eucharist to those who supported abortion.  It is well-documented that the Catholic Church is absolutely against abortion.  Absolutely.

[Five Solas]

2 hours ago, BHodges said:

...Current faith reflects forward and backward. "Bring all the good you have and let us see if we can add to it" is the open invitation of  Mormonism. Not "we have all the good already and you just have to assimilate."

You can easily see how this goes sideways with Bible-believing Christians.  The "good" (from an eternal perspective, from God's perspective) that we have is Jesus.  Period.  Martin Luther called it "the Great Exchange" (the righteousness of Christ--ours in God's eyes).  

Bring Jesus & let us see if we can add to it?!?  Yeah, that ain't gonna fly...

;0)

--Erik

[BHodges]

19 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I won't do research for you.  I only know that Bishops were denying the Eucharist to those who supported abortion.  It is well-documented that the Catholic Church is absolutely against abortion.  Absolutely.

I'm not asking you to do research for me. I'm asking you to explain where you're getting your information. So you know some bishops would deny the Eucharist to someone who supports abortion (legalization?). Ok. It's a false equivalency. The Eucharist in Catholicism and the sacrament in Mormonism, as well as the theology of church membership and a host of other things, aren't the same. And as you say, only some Catholic bishops have done this. Are the ones who forbid Eucharist or the ones who don't "real" Catholics? I submit they all are. 

[UtahTexan]

8 minutes ago, BHodges said:

I'm not asking you to do research for me. I'm asking you to explain where you're getting your information. So you know some bishops would deny the Eucharist to someone who supports abortion (legalization?). Ok. It's a false equivalency. The Eucharist in Catholicism and the sacrament in Mormonism, as well as the theology of church membership and a host of other things, aren't the same. And as you say, only some Catholic bishops have done this. Are the ones who forbid Eucharist or the ones who don't "real" Catholics? I submit they all are. 

I am getting my information from my 13 years as a Catholic...2002-2015.  I am getting my information from my Priest saying he would not give the Eucharist to anyone who supported abortion.  I am getting my information from Bishops in the news saying they would not give the Eucharist to professed Catholics John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.  I am getting my information from Catholic Doctrine that has a no-tolerance policy regarding abortion.

[Jeanne]

21 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

lol...I am a prophet

??????  Not understanding what you meant by this.

[BHodges]

25 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I am getting my information from my 13 years as a Catholic...2002-2015.  I am getting my information from my Priest saying he would not give the Eucharist to anyone who supported abortion.  I am getting my information from Bishops in the news saying they would not give the Eucharist to professed Catholics John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.  I am getting my information from Catholic Doctrine that has a no-tolerance policy regarding abortion.

I don't deny it happens. I disagree that it represents all Catholics. It also doesn't mean the same thing for Catholics as it does with Mormons.

[UtahTexan]

17 minutes ago, BHodges said:

I don't deny it happens. I disagree that it represents all Catholics. It also doesn't mean the same thing for Catholics as it does with Mormons.

It matters not if you disagree.  It is fact.  Disagree all you want.

[Calm]

http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150901_lettera-indulgenza-giubileo-misericordia.html

"One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe they they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence."

[Calm]

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/07/pope-francis-pro-abortion-politicians-ineligible-for-communion/

"The text states, in part, “[people] cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.”

“These are the guidelines we need for this time in history,” the pope wrote to the bishops."

"The Priests for Life leader said, “At a Mass during which our new Pope emphasized the duty public officials – and all the rest of us – have to protect the weakest among us, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have the audacity to receive Communion while publicly renouncing their responsibility to protect the weakest among us.”

“Some Church leaders mistakenly think we are advocating the use of the Eucharist as a ‘weapon.’ In fact, we are defending the Eucharist from being used as a political tool. These politicians have no respect for what the Eucharist means: an integral, consistent union with Christ and with all our brothers and sisters. To receive Christ while rejecting the unborn is a slap in the face to both,” he added."

[BHodges]

Where does it say "you're not a Catholic and you should just leave the Catholic church if you disagree"?