Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[Tacenda]

Cdowis: "Citing God's vengeance is immoral?   He was not referring to "his own people", to what happened,  but to the snarky, bitter message of the memorial itself.   You and I have a very interpretation of this event, with hoards of angry, vengeful Mormons screaming Allah Akbar as they destroy the infidels.  This is the antiMormon narrative of events as shown in the movies."

Cdowis, I think you and I are reading the statement by BY totally different. I read it as if he is admitting to having something to do with the vengeance on those people, maybe in his mind they had something to do with killing Joseph Smith?

Edited December 10, 2016 by Tacenda

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It shows no remorse to me, you can have your own opinion. The way BY said vengence is his and he has taken a little, after reading this on the memorial to those that were massacred... "Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord", is disturbing. Brigham Young should have been devastated to know that his own people could do such evil. He should have broke down and cried. This just shows a side of BY that isn't very decent or good. 

 

Ithink you are significantly misreading it.  From the journal where this was recorded:

"25 A vary Cold morning. Much Ice on the Creek. I wore my great Coat & mittens. We visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons killed by Indians in 1857. The pile of stone was about 12 feet high, but begining to tumble down. A wooden Cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengence is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengence is mine and I have taken a little."

iow, he is saying it should have been written by the people who put the cross up as "vengeance is mine and I have taken a little Saith the Lord" instead of what they put.  He is not instructing the men to take the cross down, remove all the words so he can put his own comment up.

The report that stated the men destroyed the memorial because they understood BY to want that makes it even clearer:

"Brother Brigham read that to himself and studied it for a while and then he read it out loud, ‘Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I have repaid.’"

There is also a report of the memorial still standing three years after the visit, so it is possible the story of the destruction was not a report of what actually happened:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Brigham_Young_orders_MMM_monument_demolished

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How is it a "bad argument for the LDS apologist"?

What does it mean to be a "safe space" for "discussions on controversial issues"?  How is it a safe space if it's goal is to be a place for controversy?

That's like making a hospital ward a safe space for the mrsa virus, or the Democratic Party having a safe space for Republican strategists to speak.

In the "free market of ideas" I have never seen any organization offer "safe space" for the opposition.

I understand the idea of not providing a space for the opposition.   But for an active LDS person there is no where to openly discuss questions or concerns they may have in a healthy open dialogue.  Such things simply are not welcome.   You can discuss questions perhaps with your bishop but other than that keep quiet about it.  And more often than not your bishop is not all that able to assist.  

So I just keep quiet.  

A good example was a recent post I made on Facebook.  I won't go into the details but it was a fairly benign comment of historical fact about the Utah war and why an army was sent to Utah.  One of the members of my ward jumped all over me for posting my negative opinion and told me I should watch what I say.  But I had only posted a factual reference to a historical event, readily available and relevant to the discussion.  

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I understand the idea of not providing a space for the opposition.   But for an active LDS person there is no where to openly discuss questions or concerns they may have in a healthy open dialogue.  Such things simply are not welcome.   You can discuss questions perhaps with your bishop but other than that keep quiet about it.  And more often than not your bishop is not all that able to assist.  

So I just keep quiet.  

A good example was a recent post I made on Facebook.  I won't go into the details but it was a fairly benign comment of historical fact about the Utah war and why an army was sent to Utah.  One of the members of my ward jumped all over me for posting my negative opinion and told me I should watch what I say.  But I had only posted a factual reference to a historical event, readily available and relevant to the discussion.  

In addition to discussing issues/concerns with the Bishop, how about home teachers?  Visiting Trachers?  Elders Quorum presidency?  Relief Society presidency?  Scriptures?  Teachings of the Prophets?  Online apologies--in particular a message board I'm sure you know...

Or...I dunno...maybe your Father in Heaven in the form of prayer?  

The idea that there's "nowhere" to go is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm sure your Facebook post wasn't at all sarcastic...that notion isn't at all based on your posting history here 

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

A good example was a recent post I made on Facebook.  I won't go into the details but it was a fairly benign comment of historical fact about the Utah war and why an army was sent to Utah.  One of the members of my ward jumped all over me for posting my negative opinion and told me I should watch what I say.  But I had only posted a factual reference to a historical event, readily available and relevant to the discussion.  

"Thanks for your concern that the Danites might be reading my posts on Facebook.  I will be much more cautious  in the future." (spoken in a whisper)

Edited December 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/6/2016 at 8:17 PM, Danzo said:

FYI, tonight we had the missionaries over for dinner and we had a discussion about the mountain meadows massacre with them and our children. Our oldest (who is a high schooler) seemed interested, but I am afraid the younger ones didn't seem that interested. I guess we may have to repeat the discussion when they are older lest they accuse us of hiding history.

The Sisters didn't seem too shaken about it (they seemed to already know about it)

[Board glitch: Response showed up with the wrong post attached.]

Edited December 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On December 5, 2016 at 1:56 PM, lostindc said:

This doesn't seem to apply at all to your claims that one cannot discuss difficult subjects in Sunday School.  You went as far as to call it trespassing.  Can you please clarify?  I am a bit lost at times so perhaps I missed the point.

I earnestly disagree that it doesn't apply. 

The material I quoted states clearly and directly, that Sunday School's purpose is to foster faith and build testimony. 

If one's intent in introducing "difficult subjects" is contrary to that purpose, it does not belong in Sunday School. Nominal membership in the Church gives no one the right to do that, and, yes, trespassing is an apt term for it. 

As a teacher in the class, I would not allow it, and as a student in the class, I would not remain if it were permitted.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, SteveO said:

In addition to discussing issues/concerns with the Bishop, how about home teachers?  Visiting Trachers?  Elders Quorum presidency?  Relief Society presidency?  Scriptures?  Teachings of the Prophets?  Online apologies--in particular a message board I'm sure you know...

Or...I dunno...maybe your Father in Heaven in the form of prayer?  

The idea that there's "nowhere" to go is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm sure your Facebook post wasn't at all sarcastic...that notion isn't at all based on your posting history here 

About as sarcastic as your post aye?

[sdc999]

Just had an interesting conversation in reverse.   I saw a young LDS kid on FB spouting some hardcore folklore  as a defense for polygamy.  I've been friends with his parents for years.  I shot him a private email to let him know that in his aggressive defense of the church, he was spouting some very inaccurate information.   The sdc999 from 8 years ago would have shredded this poor guy, but instead, I steered him in the direction of the essays on lds.org.  He took his post down immediately and thanked me.  He also said that is how it was explained to him for years and most recently, in his college ward. (one of the two prominent LDS colleges).  He said he would read the essay on polygamy but I warned him about learning things.  I told him he may learn of many things he was taught that were false.   

Here in lies the problem.  This kid was raised actively LDS - seminary - the works.  Worked just after high school and decided to go back to college  in his early 20's.  It doesn't sound like the conversations are any different in EQ or Gospel Doctrine class than when I attended.  In a ward for students on campus.    If people are in the class that know the truth and allow this folklore to go unquestioned, they should be smacked around a little.  

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, SteveO said:

In addition to discussing issues/concerns with the Bishop, how about home teachers?  Visiting Trachers?  Elders Quorum presidency?  Relief Society presidency?  Scriptures?  Teachings of the Prophets?  Online apologies--in particular a message board I'm sure you know...

Or...I dunno...maybe your Father in Heaven in the form of prayer?  

The idea that there's "nowhere" to go is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm sure your Facebook post wasn't at all sarcastic...that notion isn't at all based on your posting history here 

Further to your comments above:

 

1:  Yes I think I mentioned the bishop.  2  Home teachers are not a safe place.  Most won't be able to deal with the questions or concerns and likely won't keep such things to themselves if the doubting members is worried about such things.   Teachings of the prophets and scriptures will answer questions on the sticky issues exactly how? 

2:  You next point erroneously pre supposes those facing questions about their faith don't pray to god.

3:  The idea that the Church has a good way for those who are not "orthodox" in their views has a welcoming way to air such views is what is ridiculous.

[SteveO]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

About as sarcastic as your post aye?

My post was meant to be.  But I'm not the one posting to Facebook and scratching my head as to why it could possibly have been ill received aye?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Further to your comments above:

 

1:  Yes I think I mentioned the bishop.  2  Home teachers are not a safe place.  Most won't be able to deal with the questions or concerns and likely won't keep such things to themselves if the doubting members is worried about such things.   Teachings of the prophets and scriptures will answer questions on the sticky issues exactly how? 

2:  You next point erroneously pre supposes those facing questions about their faith don't pray to god.

3:  The idea that the Church has a good way for those who are not "orthodox" in their views has a welcoming way to air such views is what is ridiculous.

1.  I know you mentioned bishop.  Reread my post.  I said "in addition to"

2. You'd rather make a scene by grandstanding in Sunday school/priesthood class?  You want a "school of the doubters" set aside each Sunday?  Why don't you come out and tell us specifically what it is you want in your "safe space"?  And ignoring the scriptures and teachings of the prophets answers sticky issues how exactly?  

3.  I never said they didn't, but doing so without faith is a rather dead action isn't it?  

"How dare you SteveO"?

Yeah I said it.  You just got done asking how consulting the scriptures and words of the prophets would accomplish anything.  Why would I assume your attitude towards prayer is any different? Reread Moroni's promise if you need a refresher on how it all works.

4.  I dunno man, I don't think you'll be satisfied no matter what the church does.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, sdc999 said:

Just had an interesting conversation in reverse.   I saw a young LDS kid on FB spouting some hardcore folklore  as a defense for polygamy.  I've been friends with his parents for years.  I shot him a private email to let him know that in his aggressive defense of the church, he was spouting some very inaccurate information.   The sdc999 from 8 years ago would have shredded this poor guy, but instead, I steered him in the direction of the essays on lds.org.  He took his post down immediately and thanked me.  He also said that is how it was explained to him for years and most recently, in his college ward. (one of the two prominent LDS colleges).  He said he would read the essay on polygamy but I warned him about learning things.  I told him he may learn of many things he was taught that were false.   

Here in lies the problem.  This kid was raised actively LDS - seminary - the works.  Worked just after high school and decided to go back to college  in his early 20's.  It doesn't sound like the conversations are any different in EQ or Gospel Doctrine class than when I attended.  In a ward for students on campus.    If people are in the class that know the truth and allow this folklore to go unquestioned, they should be smacked around a little.  

If he's a "young LDS kid," you might give him a little bit of slack. 

I say good for him that he wanted to defend the Church. And it's to your credit that you steered him in the direction of the essays. But reading between the lines, it seems to me he is like many, many young people who go through their youth not being much interested in things pertaining to Church history and such. They accept a one-time pat answer without bothering to look more deeply into a matter and then later claim that's what they "were taught." I think that's understandable given age and maturity level. Doesn't  mean they wouldn't have learned more or learned differently had the interest been there and they had bothered to consult more authoritative sources. 

[sdc999]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he's a "young LDS kid," you might give him a little bit of slack. 

I say good for him that he wanted to defend the Church. And it's to your credit that you steered him in the direction of the essays. But reading between the lines, it seems to me he is like many, many young people who go through their youth not being much interested in things pertaining to Church history and such. They accept a one-time pat answer without bothering to look more deeply into a matter and then later claim that's what they "were taught." I think that's understandable given age and maturity level. Doesn't  mean they wouldn't have learned more or learned differently had the interest been there and they had bothered to consult more authoritative sources. 

Please take this as coming across friendly, but if someone is attacking a member of the church on what they believe, and they start spewing off folklore ('pat answers') in response, the attacker will have a field day.    "so you were lied to all of your life.  If they lied about this, what about other things.  list list list...."   This can get even the strongest of testimonies questioning.  Attackers of the church don't give slack.  I will also tell you that kids tend to view their parents as authoritative sources as well as teachers of the classes they attend.  

It's good for anyone to defend what they believe in.  I run a business and I've seen three responses to questions: 1. Respond correctly.   2. Respond with, "I don't know but I will find out".  3.  Respond with incorrect information.    Number three ALWAYS causes headaches and sometime monetary losses --  And Hard Feelings.

The LDS church will always be attacked.  So it might be in the best interest to educate these young kids a little better.  Again, I think the church is moving in a better direction with the essays but if they are not emphasized, effects will be minimized.  Kids seem to 'know it all' in their younger years and they will fight/defend a little stronger.  I don't like to see kids get taken advantage of by someone not giving slack - but that's exactly what happens.   

[hope_for_things]

On 12/9/2016 at 3:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

Nah, you will find that you have a bullet proofed perspective to construct your own beliefs with total confidence even if that includes also being Mormon.

THAT is what Rorty would call an "ironist"- one who knows truth is his own construction even if it includes the perspectives and philosophies of others as well.

Without "facts" Mormonism is as true as any other perspective- that is the strength of this view for apologetics that very few understand.  Those who do see Mormonism with a new perspective.

If humans are the measure of all things, so is a Human God.  The perspective makes humans into gods- which is- guess what--  Mormon doctrine.

The perspective makes humanism the height of religion because now making humans into gods is the key to the best humans we can be- straight humanism AND straight Mormonism

By constructing out own reality as an ironist,  we emulate God by "creating worlds by means of intelligence in organizing matter unorganized"- a totally Mormon perspective.  The first world we create is ours, right here and right now!

This Rorty stuff works for atheists of his stripe, yes, but it also works for Mormons.  

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007QXW7SW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Emphasis added:

That's post TRADITIONAL Christianity.

D&C 84, plus many others.

Seeing Jesus as our "friend" and literal brother and God as the literal father "of our spirits" turns the traditional view of Christianity on its head.

This is the perspective I first saw when I started investigating the church.  

Very interesting.  I have "The Future of Religion" by Rorty and Vattimo on my Amazon books list, just haven't purchased it yet, but it sounds really interesting and I'll have to move it up the priority.  Sounds like I'm becoming a reluctant ironist, whether I like it or not.  

[Jeanne]

Reading through all of this.  I just hope that all of you can bear with me for a moment.  There is not a one of us here who have doubts,, questions...or who have already left the church that doesn't somehow grasp the thought that our friends, neighbors, families and all loved ones should be deprived of a certain pain that comes with seeing things through a lense that changes how one looks at things.  We are not hateful people..  Please listen if you can with an open mind and heart.  We might know how to keep your and ours in the church if that is where they want to be.  So...maybe not Sunday School..nor Gospel Doctrine Classes.  But there is a full range of diverse people who if not now...will be..asking huge questions.  Especially since seminaries are now getting things out.  You have young people learning certain truths that their parents/grandparents have not.  These young people may be eager to learn more and discuss with those in authority and those who they esteem to be leaders in their lives and this includes their parents, grandparents and all those who have mentored their growth and care through the years.  You have older adults confronting a group of essays that are somewhat way outside the bounds of what they have been taught..and most important..they have taught others.  Please..please..find a way ..a class after church..a middle of the week thing that will bring about those who have questions together and go ahead and give them some meat..with a steak knife to cut things through across several generations.  It is so passed time to do this.  It is better that itcomes from you..not us.  But on a selfish side, I need you.  I need you to explain to a extended family that I am not totally wrong..that their dissing of me has nothing to do with my children ...that I made a choice based on some knowledge they have yet to understand.

Thanks...for listening to my rant..or whatever..but please..save some of them from what I went through..

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Reading through all of this.  I just hope that all of you can bear with me for a moment.  There is not a one of us here who have doubts,, questions...or who have already left the church that doesn't somehow grasp the thought that our friends, neighbors, families and all loved ones should be deprived of a certain pain that comes with seeing things through a lense that changes how one looks at things.  We are not hateful people..  Please listen if you can with an open mind and heart.  We might know how to keep your and ours in the church if that is where they want to be.  So...maybe not Sunday School..nor Gospel Doctrine Classes.  But there is a full range of diverse people who if not now...will be..asking huge questions.  Especially since seminaries are now getting things out.  You have young people learning certain truths that their parents/grandparents have not.  These young people may be eager to learn more and discuss with those in authority and those who they esteem to be leaders in their lives and this includes their parents, grandparents and all those who have mentored their growth and care through the years.  You have older adults confronting a group of essays that are somewhat way outside the bounds of what they have been taught..and most important..they have taught others.  Please..please..find a way ..a class after church..a middle of the week thing that will bring about those who have questions together and go ahead and give them some meat..with a steak knife to cut things through across several generations.  It is so passed time to do this.  It is better that itcomes from you..not us.  But on a selfish side, I need you.  I need you to explain to a extended family that I am not totally wrong..that their dissing of me has nothing to do with my children ...that I made a choice based on some knowledge they have yet to understand.

Thanks...for listening to my rant..or whatever..but please..save some of them from what I went through..

 

They need a support group!  Half kidding! 

My brother and I attended the Addiction Recovery Program aka AA, the church has put out that has the same concept as AA, such as the 12 Step Program. The missionary couple in charge are amazing, especially the sister. She gives the best message at the end. My brother is pretty much agnostic, but I could tell he was very touched, by his response to her.

Why I mention this is because while sitting there, I thought, we need something like this for those that are maybe sideswiped at learning new information about church history that they thought was wrong or anti, and now it's fact. We need a group setting for them to discuss openly or they might go elsewhere that isn't faith promoting.

I would love to see this idea, and agree Jeanne, that something might need to be in place. Just having this info on the LDS.org's Gospel Topic Essays, may not be enough. In fact I've heard stories that when someone has referred them to someone during conversation, that person will look at them, and not believe it came from the top.

So here, here on the idea to have a mid week time to get together similar to the ARP the church sponsors. I wonder what it could be called, ideas?

I wonder if something like this could be done. I don't think having Richard Bushman or others giving firesides is enough. People need support, they are suffereing, I've been at it for so long. I wonder if something had been in place, where I'd be. I hate to play the blame game, but feel if my Stake President, who was my bishop at the time, had said something or been actively asking how my crisis was going, it could have helped. 

[Jeanne]

Just now, Tacenda said:

They need a support group!  Half kidding! 

My brother and I attended the Addiction Recovery Program aka AA, the church has put out that has the same concept as AA, such as the 12 Step Program. The missionary couple in charge are amazing, especially the sister. She gives the best message at the end. My brother is pretty much agnostic, but I could tell he was very touched, by his response to her.

Why I mention this is because while sitting there, I thought, we need something like this for those that are maybe sideswiped at learning new information about church history that they thought was wrong or anti, and now it's fact. We need a group setting for them to discuss openly or they might go elsewhere that isn't faith promoting.

I would love to see this idea, and agree Jeanne, that something might need to be in place. Just having this info on the LDS.org's Gospel Topic Essays, may not be enough. In fact I've heard stories that when someone has referred them to someone during conversation, that person will look at them, and not believe it came from the top.

So here, here on the idea to have a mid week time to get together similar to the ARP the church sponsors. I wonder what it could be called, ideas?

I wonder if something like this could be done. I don't think having Richard Bushman or others giving firesides is enough. People need support, they are suffereing, I've been at it for so long. I wonder if something had been in place, where I'd be. I hate to play the blame game, but feel if my Stake President, who was my bishop at the time, had said something or been actively asking how my crisis was going, it could have helped. 

The very fact that your brother is touched..brought tears to my eyes.  See..we all need eachother!!  God speaks...and angels in our mist may not have anything to do with particular religion..but humas touch and a search for better understanding.  Tacenda, I mentioned before that my nephew went through all of this...and in fact hit bottom in a federal prison..when he got out..it was touch and go..but he gave me his diary..and oh..God was in it everywhere! Bless you for being a sister that goes beyond love in to actually action!!  The dialogue is everything and we find our own truths..if it makes us better..then nothing wrong with that.  You rock..and so does your bro.  Everyday is another challenge!!

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, sdc999 said:

Please take this as coming across friendly, but if someone is attacking a member of the church on what they believe, and they start spewing off folklore ('pat answers') in response, the attacker will have a field day.    "so you were lied to all of your life.  If they lied about this, what about other things.  list list list...."   This can get even the strongest of testimonies questioning.  Attackers of the church don't give slack.  I will also tell you that kids tend to view their parents as authoritative sources as well as teachers of the classes they attend.  

It's good for anyone to defend what they believe in.  I run a business and I've seen three responses to questions: 1. Respond correctly.   2. Respond with, "I don't know but I will find out".  3.  Respond with incorrect information.    Number three ALWAYS causes headaches and sometime monetary losses --  And Hard Feelings.

The LDS church will always be attacked.  So it might be in the best interest to educate these young kids a little better.  Again, I think the church is moving in a better direction with the essays but if they are not emphasized, effects will be minimized.  Kids seem to 'know it all' in their younger years and they will fight/defend a little stronger.  I don't like to see kids get taken advantage of by someone not giving slack - but that's exactly what happens.   

I don't disagree with any of this except to say we should be wary about statements like "This is what I was taught." That could mean merely that the person was fed some ignorant piece of folklore back when he was 12 from someone scarcely better informed than he was and that he was never interested enough to try to confirm it with a more reliable source. Such a thing is not not necessarily indicative of a system-wide failure, especially in this day and age when the "Gospel Topics" essays are so easily accessible.

Furthermore, warning somebody in advance that the "Gospel Topics" essays could shake his faith may be an instance of needless well poisoning, intentional or not. Personally, I have yet to read anything in any of the essays that I've found particularly jarring or troubling. I have to think there is a least some measure of the population who would receive the information therein as I did. Rather, let the person read and study the essays without advance comment, and offer help in advance should he have further questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/10/2016 at 3:00 PM, Tacenda said:

Cdowis: "Citing God's vengeance is immoral?   He was not referring to "his own people", to what happened,  but to the snarky, bitter message of the memorial itself.   You and I have a very interpretation of this event, with hoards of angry, vengeful Mormons screaming Allah Akbar as they destroy the infidels.  This is the antiMormon narrative of events as shown in the movies."

Cdowis, I think you and I are reading the statement by BY totally different. I read it as if he is admitting to having something to do with the vengeance on those people, maybe in his mind they had something to do with killing Joseph Smith?

To sustain your impression, there would have to be independent persuasive evidence that Brigham Young was indeed culpable in the mass murders. After more than a century and a half, there has yet to be anything of that nature emerge. To the contrary, we have the message sent from Brigham Young telling the Cedar City settlers to leave the wagon train immigrants alone. The message arrived too late to do any good, but it's an obvious and compelling indication of Brigham Young's position.

The far more reasonable conclusion is that at the point in time you're talking about, President Young still had not learned the whole truth about the incident, that he was going off of propaganda, lies, rumors and half-truths that had been spread by the perpetrators to justify their own actions, and that God had exacted vengeance upon the wagon-train travelers for deeds they had committed.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

But on a selfish side, I need you.  I need you to explain to a extended family that I am not totally wrong..that their dissing of me has nothing to do with my children ...that I made a choice based on some knowledge they have yet to understand.

Thanks...for listening to my rant..or whatever..but please..save some of them from what I went through..

You have been persecuted for your beliefs, and that is unfortunate!

Your desire to be understood is legitimate.  I think we all want to be understood, and better yet, accepted.  You mention that you want to be understood that you "made a choice based on some knowledge they have yet to understand."  I find it interesting that believers want to be understood in the same way, and are often persecuted like you, for their "knowledge".  Often times, when people are simply trying to justify their own position and beliefs in an attempt to be understood and accepted, it often is perceived as invalidating to those who hold an alternate view, and we become defensive and make counter attacks.  It becomes a vicious cycle.  

 While I agree that the more accurate information that we have out there, the better for us all, I don't know if it will go very far in generating tolerance, understanding, and acceptance of others.  This is because we can both be looking at the exact same information and interpret it in two completely different ways.  In the end, the believers will still perceive the unbelievers as "totally wrong", and vise versa.  The disagreement will no longer be about the information being true or not, it will be about which perception, interpretation, or explanation is "totally wrong".   I am afraid that your suggestion to "give them some meat" will not be the end of your woes.  Generally speaking, trying to change others to make you happier doesn't work out in the end.  What does generate happiness and peace, even in light of persecution is empathy, forgiveness, tolerance, and charity...all of the Christ-like and Christ-taught principles and attributes are what bring true happiness and peace in this life.  It is the "forgive them, for they know not what they do" attitude that will give you what you are looking for in this life (from my personal experience).  Be Christ-like, even when the "Christians" are not, because they truly "know not what they do".

 

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Very interesting.  I have "The Future of Religion" by Rorty and Vattimo on my Amazon books list, just haven't purchased it yet, but it sounds really interesting and I'll have to move it up the priority.  Sounds like I'm becoming a reluctant ironist, whether I like it or not.  

Just remember - and I will put this very directly and perhaps in a way that is provocative and too strong for most members of the church, but I feel I must say it in a way which will not hurt but help members and could help some significantly

If truth cannot defined in one consistent way for all instances of use of the word, there is no one truth for all.  That means that Mormonism is just as true for Mormons as atheism is true for atheists.   Atheists do not see reality as we do and our context does not make sense for them.

The key is honoring the spirit in each of our hearts individually.  If we feel the spirit and KNOW that God is real, there is nothing that can disprove that.  If we can say that "the church is true" and knowing in our hearts, there is no rational argument which can deny that.

If one is an "ironist"- one who defines his or her own reality, in my perspective, we are becoming more like God who is the one who defined all reality as humans are able to see it. He is the designer of the "Master Human Plan" for becoming Ideal Humans.

We can see that as humanism, or we can see that as the Plan of Happiness - acting in a way which simultaneously puts us closer to the Man of Holiness as the Ideal Human with whom we share one "Nature" - the human who can become a God.  Like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, "caterpillar nature" includes both potentials.

Just know that Rorty and company do not have more "truth" than anyone else.  They show us one of many possibilities and many ways to see religion, but as in all relativism, relativistic truths are only relatively true.

A true ironist takes many views and cobbles them together into a view that works for them, but follows nothing slavishly and honors all the same right.  There is no need to suddenly see ironism as the "one true view", and the paradox with Rorty is I think he pushes that idea.

In a sense trying to "be an ironist" automatically makes one NOT an ironist by definition because then one is a follower of Rorty, and then one is not an ironist.

My final problem with Rorty is that he sees individuals as completely contingent and conditioned by language and culture so much that the individual disappears.  We are little robots conditioned by culture and yet we are to overcome that culture and become one who creates one's truth!

I see that as a central contradiction.

If we are contingent beings we cannot be ironists!  Perhaps you do not understand that yet, but you will. 

So take Rorty with plenty of grains of salt and again, just know that even relativism is only relatively true.    This is a complex world and no one gets it "perfectly right" ever- there is no "perfect right" that can be even put into language, and that includes Rorty's language!

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You have been persecuted for your beliefs, and that is unfortunate!

Your desire to be understood is legitimate.  I think we all want to be understood, and better yet, accepted.  You mention that you want to be understood that you "made a choice based on some knowledge they have yet to understand."  I find it interesting that believers want to be understood in the same way, and are often persecuted like you, for their "knowledge".  Often times, when people are simply trying to justify their own position and beliefs in an attempt to be understood and accepted, it often is perceived as invalidating to those who hold an alternate view, and we become defensive and make counter attacks.  It becomes a vicious cycle.  

 While I agree that the more accurate information that we have out there, the better for us all, I don't know if it will go very far in generating tolerance, understanding, and acceptance of others.  This is because we can both be looking at the exact same information and interpret it in two completely different ways.  In the end, the believers will still perceive the unbelievers as "totally wrong", and vise versa.  The disagreement will no longer be about the information being true or not, it will be about which perception, interpretation, or explanation is "totally wrong".   I am afraid that your suggestion to "give them some meat" will not be the end of your woes.  Generally speaking, trying to change others to make you happier doesn't work out in the end.  What does generate happiness and peace, even in light of persecution is empathy, forgiveness, tolerance, and charity...all of the Christ-like and Christ-taught principles and attributes are what bring true happiness and peace in this life.  It is the "forgive them, for they know not what they do" attitude that will give you what you are looking for in this life (from my personal experience).  Be Christ-like, even when the "Christians" are not, because they truly "know not what they do".

 

 

Thank you so much for your thoughts here.  I appreciate the fact that my post was "listened" to.  I respect what you are saying and it is dialogue like this that gives me hope.  Merry Christmas!

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just remember - and I will put this very directly and perhaps in a way that is provocative and too strong for most members of the church, but I feel I must say it in a way which will not hurt but help members and could help some significantly

If truth cannot defined in one consistent way for all instances of use of the word, there is no one truth for all.  That means that Mormonism is just as true for Mormons as atheism is true for atheists.   Atheists do not see reality as we do and our context does not make sense for them.

The key is honoring the spirit in each of our hearts individually.  If we feel the spirit and KNOW that God is real, there is nothing that can disprove that.  If we can say that "the church is true" and knowing in our hearts, there is no rational argument which can deny that.

If one is an "ironist"- one who defines his or her own reality, in my perspective, we are becoming more like God who is the one who defined all reality as humans are able to see it. He is the designer of the "Master Human Plan" for becoming Ideal Humans.

We can see that as humanism, or we can see that as the Plan of Happiness - acting in a way which simultaneously puts us closer to the Man of Holiness as the Ideal Human with whom we share one "Nature" - the human who can become a God.  Like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, "caterpillar nature" includes both potentials.

Just know that Rorty and company do not have more "truth" than anyone else.  They show us one of many possibilities and many ways to see religion, but as in all relativism, relativistic truths are only relatively true.

A true ironist takes many views and cobbles them together into a view that works for them, but follows nothing slavishly and honors all the same right.  There is no need to suddenly see ironism as the "one true view", and the paradox with Rorty is I think he pushes that idea.

In a sense trying to "be an ironist" automatically makes one NOT an ironist by definition because then one is a follower of Rorty, and then one is not an ironist.

My final problem with Rorty is that he sees individuals as completely contingent and conditioned by language and culture so much that the individual disappears.  We are little robots conditioned by culture and yet we are to overcome that culture and become one who creates one's truth!

I see that as a central contradiction.

If we are contingent beings we cannot be ironists!  Perhaps you do not understand that yet, but you will. 

So take Rorty with plenty of grains of salt and again, just know that even relativism is only relatively true.    This is a complex world and no one gets it "perfectly right" ever- there is no "perfect right" that can be even put into language, and that includes Rorty's language!

Excellent, thank you, makes sense to me.  I'm not concerned about becoming a devote of Rorty and company 100%, I'm quite skeptical of perspectives, yours included, and I tend to find my own way picking and choosing what works for me.  At least I'm delusional enough to think that I consciously do this, although I'm sure much of it is influenced by my environment and culture.  At any rate, I'm looking forward to testing these ideas and my intellect and spirit, always searching for growth and meaning in the process. 

 

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, SteveO said:

My post was meant to be.  But I'm not the one posting to Facebook and scratching my head as to why it could possibly have been ill received aye?

1.  I know you mentioned bishop.  Reread my post.  I said "in addition to"

2. You'd rather make a scene by grandstanding in Sunday school/priesthood class?  You want a "school of the doubters" set aside each Sunday?  Why don't you come out and tell us specifically what it is you want in your "safe space"?  And ignoring the scriptures and teachings of the prophets answers sticky issues how exactly?  

3.  I never said they didn't, but doing so without faith is a rather dead action isn't it?  

"How dare you SteveO"?

Yeah I said it.  You just got done asking how consulting the scriptures and words of the prophets would accomplish anything.  Why would I assume your attitude towards prayer is any different? Reread Moroni's promise if you need a refresher on how it all works.

4.  I dunno man, I don't think you'll be satisfied no matter what the church does.

The discussion with you is on this is apparently fruitless.  There are many reasons why. I am sure I add my own bias.  I am skeptical if you see your own.  For the true believer the premise is this:  "The Church is True."  All else is relegated to proving and defending this bias. LDS believers do not approach their faith with a prove all things  with openness even if it leads somewhere else that may be painful.  It is doubt your doubts rather than embrace your doubts, challenge your assumptions, test your a priori conclusions and have the courage to reject them if they don't stand up.

  You say I won't be satisfied no matter what the Church does?  Perhaps you are correct. But I have been where you are.  Have you been where I am now?  Maybe but I don't know. Feel free to share. I can tell you this. I know people in other faith traditions that are not afraid that brining up challenging issues will threaten their standing in their faith community. This is typically not the case in the LDS Church. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Teancum

[cdowis]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The discussion with you is on this is apparently fruitless.  There are many reasons why. I am sure I add my own bias.  I am skeptical if you see your own.  For the true believer the premise is this:  "The Church is True."  All else is relegated to proving and defending this bias. LDS believers do not approach their faith with a prove all things  with openness even if it leads somewhere else that may be painful. 

Yes, it is true that I carry a bias, that I have proved all things and found the truth, that I am not carried about, tossed to and fro by doubts.

Matt 16  [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Eph 4  [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Luke 6 [48] He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.[49] But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.