Some LDS scholars like to agree with Anti-Mormons

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

But then again, I live in a backwater in the Pacific Northwest that no one's ever heard of (named after some Native American no one remembers).  So that doubtless explains my ignorance.

Pocatello is definitely not everyone's cup of Cha.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'm guessing not--because I actually don't know *anyone* who thinks that, bluebell.  Seriously, I can't name a single person around here and my kids are in public school, I have a career in professional services that connects me to lots of folks, businesses, etc.  But then again, I live in a backwater in the Pacific Northwest that no one's ever heard of (named after some Native American no one remembers).  So that doubtless explains my ignorance. 

Thank you for helping me stay humble. 

;0)

--Erik

 I don't know anyone like that either, thank goodness, but i can read their words online (the same way that we don't know each other, but we read each other's words and beliefs online.)

[Sine Saw Square]

On 6/17/2017 at 3:44 PM, Five Solas said:

I'm guessing not--because I actually don't know *anyone* who thinks that, bluebell.  Seriously, I can't name a single person around here and my kids are in public school, I have a career in professional services that connects me to lots of folks, businesses, etc.  But then again, I live in a backwater in the Pacific Northwest that no one's ever heard of (named after some Native American no one remembers).  So that doubtless explains my ignorance. 

Thank you for helping me stay humble. 

;0)

--Erik

Phew! I work in Seattle and could assemble a large room full of acquaintances who feel that way.

[Five Solas]

21 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

Phew! I work in Seattle and could assemble a large room full of acquaintances who feel that way.

We're getting rather far from the original point --

Nonetheless, what you've expressed slanders the residents of our fair city.  And that you insist otherwise indicates you don't know people here very well.  But now it's just my word against yours, isn't it?

I'm always happy to have a beverage with anyone in the vicinity (I live in Seattle's U-District).  And it's happened exactly once. 

Will you make it twice?  Let's you and I understand how our experience of people in Seattle could be so radically different. 

--Erik

[Sine Saw Square]

22 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

We're getting rather far from the original point --

Nonetheless, what you've expressed slanders the residents of our fair city.  And that you insist otherwise indicates you don't know people here very well.  But now it's just my word against yours, isn't it?

I'm always happy to have a beverage with anyone in the vicinity (I live in Seattle's U-District).  And it's happened exactly once. 

Will you make it twice?  Let's you and I understand how our experience of people in Seattle could be so radically different. 

--Erik

Slander?  No slander intended! Many of my Seattle peers I count as good friends. I insist on nothing in the matter other than my experience. Which is that there exists a secular mistrust of Christianity especially in its organized forms, at least among the artist and tech sectors of the Emerald City. 

I'm down for a meet up downtown. On this board, I'm nothing special, so I wouldn't get your hopes up for some amazing exchange.

Drop  me a line and we'll figure it out. 

[Five Solas]

15 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

Slander?  No slander intended! Many of my Seattle peers I count as good friends. I insist on nothing in the matter other than my experience. Which is that there exists a secular mistrust of Christianity especially in its organized forms, at least among the artist and tech sectors of the Emerald City. 

I'm down for a meet up downtown. On this board, I'm nothing special, so I wouldn't get your hopes up for some amazing exchange.

Drop  me a line and we'll figure it out. 

Sweet!  Just sent you a message.  Expectations are high.

:0)

--Erik

[mfbukowski]

On 6/17/2017 at 3:44 PM, Five Solas said:

I'm guessing not--because I actually don't know *anyone* who thinks that, bluebell.  Seriously, I can't name a single person around here and my kids are in public school, I have a career in professional services that connects me to lots of folks, businesses, etc.  But then again, I live in a backwater in the Pacific Northwest that no one's ever heard of (named after some Native American no one remembers).  So that doubtless explains my ignorance. 

Thank you for helping me stay humble. 

;0)

--Erik

Just fyi that also represents S California.  Pretty much totally secular.  If you go to church you are weird and the neighborhood authoritarian freak to watch out for.

I mean guys like that are liable to shoot you for stepping on their lawn and they all have guns of course so look out.

[deli_llama]

36 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

I insist on nothing in the matter other than my experience. Which is that there exists a secular mistrust of Christianity especially in its organized forms, at least among the artist and tech sectors of the Emerald City. 

I also haven't experienced anything close to that here in Seattle. I dunno, maybe it is the area I live in, just east of the u-district (likely I am in Five Solas' ward, who knows), but honestly—nothing.  I also haven't experienced this in any of the large urban cities I have lived in thoughout my life.  The closest I have come to experiencing anything along those lines would be from my private and professional interactions with some of the local natives or other indigenous peoples I work with. That mistrust stems from very different sources though, and I don't feel comfortable lumping it in with this.

I am not saying it doesn't exist, but frankly it isn't anything I have personally experienced. 

On 6/18/2017 at 8:17 AM, bluebell said:

I don't know anyone like that either, thank goodness, but i can read their words online (the same way that we don't know each other, but we read each other's words and beliefs online.)

That is just it though. If there is one thing I have observed about online interactions, and this observation seems particularly relevant this last year or so, is that there is a loud, vocal, and somewhat vitriolic group of online peoples (of all persuasions) that are not really indicative of the reality and communities we live in. It seems that has been hashed out (again) in a couple of different threads here today. 

If I were to take all of the interactions (not just the negative) of the discussion board members here as a sampling, and apply said observations of this very small sample to the various larger communities—LDS, Ex, Critics, Non, whatever—I would be doing those larger communities, and myself, a disservice. 

Of course, it is all subjective, so "for what it is worth…"

[USU78]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just fyi that also represents S California.  Pretty much totally secular.  If you go to church you are weird and the neighborhood authoritarian freak to watch out for.

I mean guys like that are liable to shoot you for stepping on their lawn and they all have guns of course so look out.

😂

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, deli_llama said:

That is just it though. If there is one thing I have observed about online interactions, and this observation seems particularly relevant this last year or so, is that there is a loud, vocal, and somewhat vitriolic group of online peoples (of all persuasions) that are not really indicative of the reality and communities we live in. It seems that has been hashed out (again) in a couple of different threads here today. 

If I were to take all of the interactions (not just the negative) of the discussion board members here as a sampling, and apply said observations of this very small sample to the various larger communities—LDS, Ex, Critics, Non, whatever—I would be doing those larger communities, and myself, a disservice. 

Of course, it is all subjective, so "for what it is worth…"

I agree to a large extent.  But just for clarity's sake, i was speaking more about those people who show up on talk shows, morning news programs, in the online news stories, and blogs.  

 

[Sine Saw Square]

6 hours ago, deli_llama said:

I am not saying it doesn't exist, but frankly it isn't anything I have personally experienced. 

 

I'm pleasantly surprised by your experiences (not knowing anyone personally who is anti-religion).  I sometimes feel like I am in the closet with my lifestyle.

[deli_llama]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree to a large extent.  But just for clarity's sake, i was speaking more about those people who show up on talk shows, morning news programs, in the online news stories, and blogs.  

Thank you for clarifying, I am not sure how I missed that you said this earlier  I will go reread to see how I missed it.

Still, I find that talking heads (be they on the news programs, twitter stars, bloggers, outspoken community activists, or posters [critics and defenders] at mormondialogue.org) are not always indicative of the actual thoughts, feelings, or actions of the larger groups, societies, and communities they claim representation of.  Humans are more nuanced than that, and we tend to forget this in the heat of the moment, particularly when we are all rushing around in a flurried mess to circle the wagons, jump on the bandwagon, or derail the wagon train. 

[deli_llama]

14 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

Slander?  No slander intended! Many of my Seattle peers I count as good friends. I insist on nothing in the matter other than my experience. Which is that there exists a secular mistrust of Christianity especially in its organized forms, at least among the artist and tech sectors of the Eme

 

6 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

I'm pleasantly surprised by your experiences (not knowing anyone personally who is anti-religion).  I sometimes feel like I am in the closet with my lifestyle.

Which is it though? Are we speaking of a secular mistrust of Christianity especially in its organized form, or people who are anti-religion?  I was responding to the 'secular mistrust of Christianity. It seems to me that, minus some small overlap, these are not necessarily identical groups of people or thought.  I have met people that have disagreements with organized religion, you might even say a few they are anti-religion, but they don't confine their concerns to any one particular religion, like say Christianity. Given my field it is usually disagreement with organized schools or branches within taoism or buddhism, and this critism comes from the inside. However, that is a totally different conversation.  

It might be that I am lucky, nobody—not friends nor family—particularly like to play games of chance with me. So, who knows? I can't explain why I haven't been confronted with the same set of circumstances you have been. I don't feel at all like I am in a religious closet. Quite the opposite, it is something that comes up as a matter of course in my professional life and continuing education —"unorganized" indigenous spiritual beliefs and practices and highly "organized" religions. In fact, too often for my tastes it becomes the topic over dinner or at a social gatherings with friends or colleagues. So, it isn't like I avoid the subject matter. Maybe it is just luck. 

[RevTestament]

On 6/15/2017 at 0:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

To accept that a primitive society might have large-scale polygamy and fourteen-year-old brides, and yet not be entirely horrible, that is one thing. It is another thing to accept that God Almighty explicitly directed that lifestyle in a society that had moved far beyond it.

Arguing that Smith's polygamy was somehow less than entirely horrible cannot excuse him, because his polygamous marriages with underage brides weren't supposed to be flaws like Martin Luther King's adultery. They were supposed to be the revealed will of God. Dynastic marriages, or young girls being put on reserve for later use like an underripe pear being stuck in the fridge—okay, those might be less bad than other things one could imagine. But there is still no way that the real God would command a real prophet to do them. 

I'm not Mormon, but I try not to be anti-Mormon. There are lots of things about Mormonism that are just interesting. The polygamy is an enormous problem, however. The revulsion is real and indeed it does not go away. The Mormon defenses that I've seen so far only seem to make the problem worse, by giving the impression that even intelligent modern-day Mormons are determined to condone something hideous. The defenses make it seem as though Mormons just don't get it about polygamy, and that's disturbing, because how can they not?

Because there ample scriptural support for the fact that it is legal unless God says otherwise. There is a law of inheritance if a man have two wives. The whole sheep parable given to David by Nathan is not to point out that the man with several sheep  was evil for having them but for wanting the one sheep of the poor man who represented Uriah the Hittite, Bathsheba's husband. Samuel the prophet was the son of one of the two wives of Elkanah. israel was the product of two wives after Jacob had prevailed in his struggle. The list just goes on and on. Nor does Christ or the NT ever expressly change the law. The real God of which you speak says He gave David his wives. Can he command the principle be taught again? Yes, He can if it furthers His purposes. I may be the first to say the Restored Church did not live the principle ideally, but that doesn't mean God didn't try to give the people a chance to live it righteously or didn't want them to. Smith's polygamy was not "horrible." It has been painted as such, but the physical evidence indicates he did not try to make wives of other men his current wifes, but just sealed wives, since none of their children were by Joseph - and we know Joseph was not sterile. I believe Joseph was commanded to accept or teach polygamy - not that the Lord commanded him to marry specific wives. Anyway Joseph was told that his name would be had for evil, and I believe this is one of the major reasons why. But the plain truth of the matter is God did not consider the practice itself evil, just how men tended to live it.

Edited June 20, 2017 by RevTestament

[Sine Saw Square]

9 hours ago, deli_llama said:

 

Which is it though? Are we speaking of a secular mistrust of Christianity especially in its organized form, or people who are anti-religion?  I was responding to the 'secular mistrust of Christianity. It seems to me that, minus some small overlap, these are not necessarily identical groups of people or thought.  I have met people that have disagreements with organized religion, you might even say a few they are anti-religion, but they don't confine their concerns to any one particular religion, like say Christianity. Given my field it is usually disagreement with organized schools or branches within taoism or buddhism, and this critism comes from the inside. However, that is a totally different conversation.  

I might be confused on the topic myself. As I understood it, I was commenting on whether or not we knew people personally (in particular) who thought Christianity was not just wrong or foolish but actively 'bad'. I do know a number of people that if I asked them they would agree with that perspective. It is a viewpoint seems to be born from that secular mistrust of religion (generally) but Christianity occupies a special place for the people I know on and off line-  I think it's because they see it as part of the establish majority culture and therefor oppressive.