Are cynical critics driving away Mormons?

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

I begin with the premise that religion is crazy and work my way up from there.

Have you read Kierkegaard, the Christian existentialist? He argues that we have to believe because Christianity is absurd, not despite it.  Here's a good introduction.

[Honorentheos]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

But there can be imo many boxes that include the label "critic" and many boxes that include the label "believer" as well as boxes that have both labels.

The problem is not imo labeling people "critic" or "believer", but implying that those labels require a limited set of attitudes and behaviours and one is either the one or the other.

I tend to agree with the first sentiment, perhaps taking it beyond the idea of boxes to a spectrum that lacks such definitive boundaries.

But I think one ought to at least consider why we label people, put them in boxes even if we think there are boxes within the boxes. I think it's likely we agree there is organizational value in doing so for how we think. Perhaps we agree that we've evolved that way, or atleast that it's inherent to what might be termed mortality. The thread practically begins with a declaration about binary positions which has been in some flux throughout the discussion. But with some minor exceptions even when there is explicit acknowledgement of such binary labeling taking place it's our nature to continue to compare, contrast, and try to figure out which box an idea, an argument or a person belongs in. We might call it part of what it means to be beholden to the natural wo/man in us.

I personally believe that we aren't likely to change our nature sufficiently, so it's much more productive to examine the way we go about comparing, contrasting, how we define the boxes that matter. And work on defining the boxes in the most meaningful ways possible in accordance with our values. To answer the question of what makes an idea a good idea demands we have some concept for what it means to be a good idea, right? I'm sure we agree on almost everything in large part, or would if we were talking about it face to face. I guess my main point is that spending time thinking about this and stepping back to confirm one sincerely finds the box one is using fit to the purpose.

On my part, the labels of believers or critics has limited if any practical value. People I care about very much self-identify as deeply believing members of the church, and I have cause to believe they care about me inspite of having moved on from belief to a post-Mormon position. I don't find it helpful in really trying to sort out the truth-value of a proposition. At best, I see the utility when it comes to defining the edges between communities. But good people, as I understand what it means to be good, don't conforrm to one community only. Neither do people I don't care to associate with. I find I care most about how one treats information, how one responds to challenges to their thinking, how a person treats another person withwhom they may not agree. So I use those boxes.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Stargazer]

Nvrmd

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Well this is why I no longer believe. Christ's mission was supposedly the most important of all time, yet he didn't write anything down for us himself or didn't have scribes contemporaneously write things down. All we have are copies of copies of conflicting accounts that were written many years after the fact.

Darn.  I was going to respond to this, but realized just in time that it would be a threadjack!  Nice topic for discussion, by the way!

[Stargazer]

Why can't I cancel my post before I post it?  I hit the wrong darned button and instantly I'm into the post-creation mode and know from experience that I will not be able to get out of it cleanly until I freaking post something.

The board software used to work so much better.
 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Darn.  I was going to respond to this, but realized just in time that it would be a threadjack!  Nice topic for discussion, by the way!

I'm sure Juliann doesn't want this to morph into a critique of christianity.

[juliann]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I'm sure Juliann doesn't want this to morph into a critique of christianity.

I see what you did there.

 I haven't had much time and won't until Sun or Mon. I'll even have to forego the polygamy thread, it is that bad. Now the thread has run its course, at some point, I still hope to tie this up.

 

[smac97]

Earlier in this thread I said this:

 

Quote

Entitled Critics (Who Are Members): I think there is a crop of participants here who claim to be members of the LDS Church, and yet also routinely and publicly denigrate and insult and ridicule the LDS Church, its doctrines, practices, leaders, etc.  They appear to feel entitled to say such appalling things about our shared faith because they are nominally members of the Church.  I can see the theoretical value of this board for, say, a church member who is struggling to build or maintain a testimony of the Restored Gospel, or who is seeking to better understand a difficult and thorny topic like the Priesthood Ban or polygamy or Mountain Meadows.  But the crop of participants I have in mind do not fit that description.  Instead, they seem to revel in being a member and yet coming here and - behind the safety of an online pseudonym - publicly denigrating the Church, slandering the leaders of the Church, ridiculing sacred things, taunting fellow members of the Church, and otherwise seeking undermine and tear down the LDS Church.  This is not "constructive criticism."  This is not "loyal opposition."  This is, to me, something approaching apostasy.  There is only such much of such behavior with which I am willing to put up.  Non-member critics span the spectrum of civility, and there are a number who are quite civil and polite in their disagreements with us.  More to the point, these non-member critics are not bound by covenants as members are.  So I guess I'm saying I have substantially less patience for critics who are members of the Church than critics who are not.

This came to mind, oddly enough, as I was watching an episode (Season 2, Episode 6) of "Lark Rise to Candleford" the other day.  It is a British period drama about life in an English village circa 1895 or so.  The narrative centers on the experiences of Laura, a young woman who has grown up in a very poor village (Lark Rise), but has obtained employment in the post office in a neighboring, and somewhat more affluent, village (Candleford).

The episode in question involves Laura's efforts to run the post office while the post mistress, Miss Lane, is taken ill.  The scene in question shows Laura in tears over her apparent failure at running the post office in Miss Lane's absence, and a young man named Fisher, a clockmaker and prospective love interest, confronting her about this.  Fisher fancies himself a plainspoken kind of fellow, uninterested in and unbeholden to most social conventions.  Fisher has previously angered Laura several times through his unsolicited and blunt critiques of her personality and character.  Despite this, he seems to be trying to be her friend (perhaps even more) and provide helpful advice.

 

Here is the dialogue of the scene I have in mind (starting about 34:37 minutes in) (Laura is seen crying in the post office, and Fisher approaches):

 

Quote

Laura: Miss Lane thinks I can do this.  She thinks I'm like her, but I'm not.  And I can't.  I can't be the one responsible, it's too hard.

Fisher: Do you really think that?  Or are you just saying that so that I tell you that you can?  You've the wit and the will for anything.  

 

Laura (Angry): You think you can take people apart like clocks.  

 

Fisher: It's an honest question, Laura.

 

Laura: Why is your kind of honest always about finding fault?  

 

Fisher (Somewhat defensive): That's not true.

 

Laura: It is when you're talking to me.  "Oh, I think I'm a catch."  "I've got an opinion of myself."  "I'm this, I'm that."  "Oh, I'm just looking for praise."  You've never said one true thing to me that didn't hurt.

It's a somewhat melodramatic scene (angsty romance is not my cuppa tea these days), but the dynamic here kinda sorta reminded me of the whiff I get from the types of folks I describe in above ("Entitled Critics (Who Are Members)").  These folks may very well be telling themselves, as Fisher does, that they are simply truthtellers, and that their neverending sneers and slams and slurs against the Church and its doctrines and practices and leaders and members are, somehow, well-intentioned and "honest."  At this point Laura's question becomes rather poignant: "Why is your kind of honest always about finding fault?"

Just food for thought, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 1, 2017 by smac97

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Earlier in this thread I said this:

 

This came to mind, oddly enough, as I was watching an episode (Season 2, Episode 6) of "Lark Rise to Candleford" the other day.  It is a British period drama about life in an English village circa 1895 or so.  The narrative centers on the experiences of Laura, a young woman who has grown up in a very poor village (Lark Rise), but has obtained employment in the post office in a neighboring, and somewhat more affluent, village (Candleford).

The episode in question involves Laura's efforts to run the post office while the post mistress, Miss Lane, is taken ill.  The scene in question shows Laura in tears over her apparent failure at running the post office in Miss Lane's absence, and a young man named Fisher, a clockmaker and prospective love interest, confronting her about this.  Fisher fancies himself a plainspoken kind of fellow, uninterested in and unbeholden to most social conventions.  Fisher has previously angered Laura several times through his unsolicited and blunt critiques of her personality and character.  Despite this, he seems to be trying to be her friend (perhaps even more) and provide helpful advice.

 

Here is the dialogue of the scene I have in mind (starting about 34:37 minutes in) (Laura is scene crying in the post office, and Fisher approaches):

 

It's a somewhat melodramatic scene (angsty romance is not my cuppa tea these days), but the dynamic here kinda sorta reminded me of the whiff I get from the types of folks I describe in above ("Entitled Critics (Who Are Members)").  These folks may very well be telling themselves, as Fisher does, that they are simply truthtellers, and that their neverending sneers and slams and slurs against the Church and its doctrines and practices and leaders and members are, somehow, well-intentioned and "honest."  At this point Laura's question becomes rather poignant: "Why is your kind of honest always about finding fault?"

Just food for thought, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

I wonder if you see the irony in your original post (the one you quoted in your above post)

There seems to be a lot of fault finding on the threads here and it isn't isolated to those you might identify as critics. 

Also, I think most of the behavior you described for the "entitled critics" is not permitted per the rules of the board. So maybe we can all work together in opposition to it. 

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wonder if you see the irony in your original post (the one you quoted in your above post)

Nope.  Not seeing it.

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There seems to be a lot of fault finding on the threads here and it isn't isolated to those you might identify as critics. 

Taking exception to constant attacks from people - within and without - attacking our sacred beliefs is not reasonably characterized as "fault finding."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  Not seeing it.

Taking exception to constant attacks from people - within and without - attacking our sacred beliefs is not reasonably characterized as "fault finding."

Thanks,

-Smac

Certainly.  And as I said, we need to work together against this board becoming a place of constant attacks.  I think there are ways to respond to prevent attacks from getting traction here. 

I think it's also important for us to differentiate between an attack and a differing viewpoint or interpretation. 

[juliann]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Certainly.  And as I said, we need to work together against this board becoming a place of constant attacks.  I think there are ways to respond to prevent attacks from getting traction here. 

I think it's also important for us to differentiate between an attack and a differing viewpoint or interpretation. 

That distinction has been made, multiple times. It shouldn't need to be said again.  A quick look, which is all I have had for a week, seems to show less hostility. Do you think it is the burden of those responding to prevent attacks? What do you suggest? I appreciate your desire to work together on it.

I am having internet issues. It has been intermittent for a week now, down for 3 days. I wrote a long post, clicked, and no internet. It is gone. Sigh. My area, highly populated, has a choice between the lowest rated internet provider and the lowest rated cable company. 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

That distinction has been made, multiple times. It shouldn't need to be said again.  A quick look, which is all I have had for a week, seems to show less hostility. Do you think it is the burden of those responding to prevent attacks? What do you suggest? 

I think the most offensive and extreme posters from both sides have not been present much this past week and it's a noticeable difference.   It's a reminder that we should all maybe temper our comments or replies when we feel like attacking or offending.  It's been nice here lately.  We all need a reminder periodically.

Edited July 1, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think the most offensive and extreme posters from both sides have not been present much this past week and it's a noticeable difference.   It's a reminder that we should all maybe temper our comments or replies when we feel like attacking or offending.  It's been nice here lately.  We all need a reminder periodically.

Is this where I say that I notice you haven't been around much the past week either?  In reality, there have been more posters according to the list of those online. I've been watching that with some interest, it had been rather low for awhile which is what prompted this thread. 

 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Is this where I say that I notice you haven't been around much the past week either?  

You can say whatever you choose to say, but I've still been posting quite regularly this past week.  I'm just saying it's a good thing for us all to reflect and be more civil with those we disagree with. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You can say whatever you choose to say, but I've still been posting quite regularly this past week.  I'm just saying it's a good thing for us all to reflect and be more civil with those we disagree with. 

Of course. But that is not what this topic is about. It is about unrelenting hostile criticism not "disagreement."

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

Of course. But that is not what this topic is about. It is about unrelenting hostile criticism not "disagreement."

I agree.  One should be able to disagree without hostile critism taking place.  This happens from both sides here at times and isn't productive when trying to have a civil discussion. It's been nice to see less hostility here this past week.  I know that I've learned a great deal from almost all posters here even though they most certainly do not agree on many of the topics being discussed.

Edited July 1, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  One should be able to disagree without hostile critism taking place.  This happens from both sides here at times and isn't productive when trying to have a civil discussion. 

Again, this particular thread, one thread of thousands and thousands, is about angry, hostile critics coming into a Mormon space to antagonize. No matter how many times you try to make it about something else, it is still about angry, hostile critics coming into a Mormon space to antagonize.  

I highly recommend the Gina Colvin podcast, "Online Unchurched" if you do not understand that the over the top behavior is now being picked up by some ex/post/mo groups in the hopes of a smoother ultimate transition out of Mormonism.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

I highly recommend the Gina Colvin podcast, "Online Unchurched" if you do not understand that the over the top behavior is now being picked up by some ex/post/mo groups in the hopes of a smoother ultimate transition out of Mormonism.

I'll take a look at that podcast.  Thanks for letting me know about it!  I still believe that "over the top behavior" takes place at times from all perspectives and differing opinions expressed here.  Self reflection is always something good to do when pointing our finger at others, IMO.  I admit that I need to do this too.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I'll take a look at that podcast.  Thanks for letting me know about it!  I still believe that "over the top behavior" takes place at times from all perspectives and differing opinions expressed here.  Self reflection is always something good to do when pointing our finger at others, IMO.  I admit that I need to do this too.

As I have repeatedly said, I agree. But that is not what this topic is about.  It is about angry, hostile critics coming into a Mormon space to antagonize.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

That distinction has been made, multiple times. It shouldn't need to be said again.  A quick look, which is all I have had for a week, seems to show less hostility. Do you think it is the burden of those responding to prevent attacks? What do you suggest? I appreciate your desire to work together on it.

I am having internet issues. It has been intermittent for a week now, down for 3 days. I wrote a long post, clicked, and no internet. It is gone. Sigh. My area, highly populated, has a choice between the lowest rated internet provider and the lowest rated cable company. 

No, I don't think it is the burden of those respond to prevent attacks.  But, as long as the board is "open to the public", attacks will come.  How we respond determines if attacks get traction or if they just wither away and serve to discourage future attacks. 

I don't have specific examples of how to respond.  Sometimes I think a civil response that seeks to understand without escalating into a heated argument may be best.  Other times, just refusing to engage seems best.