Are cynical critics driving away Mormons?

[juliann]

Mine is thin, too. But there is a predictive aspect of it like a game of chess. This move elicits that move, etc. So people really shouldn't be surprised when their best laid plans backfire on them. OW is a case in point. Move by move they pushed the Church into positions that were not in OW's best interests but quite predictable. There are times when the Church has done the same thing. 

[juliann]

13 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

My honest opinion is that people who are struggling with issues of belief, history, and the claims of the church aren't looking for validation but the truth in as simple but authentic a form as they can find it. And in my experience, it turns out that isn't something one just finds spelled out for them anywhere.

So I think seeking for and finding truth makes for conflict between conflicting views, but there is authenticity in that conflict that one can typically discern if one isn't concerned about defending a particular position. Once a person has established a position and is no longer interested in seeking for the truth - and by that I mean truth not dictated by some authority but what is left after all the dross has been burned away, what has survived the assault of investigation - then validation and defense is what will be left. And both sides engage in this when they've left the thirst for truth behind in favor of, well, let's call it defense of the community whether that is community for believers or those who feel negatively towards the church.

In that sense, I think what you are asking is really if this is a place interested in the pursuit of truth in any form it can be found? Or, as it seems you suggest above, it is more about ownership of the community of those who self identify as Mormon. If you can be honest in answering that question, you'll probably find the main answer you are seeking.

Personally, I think there will always be those who are thirsting for truth, again the kind that withstands the violent assault of investigation. But there will also be those who are would prefer to commune with their supposed like-minded community...until they find the seams between their different realities and understanding of the truth. Smaller, smaller still grow those circles.

First, I don't think discussing "truth" is meaningful unless all parties are agreed upon what truth is.  Just like the refugee thread is actually about theodicy.

You are using your own definition of community.  

Quote

If you can be honest 

That is rather insulting. There is not much point continuing when this starts.

*Edited to add that my new rule is that anyone who implies I'm not capable of honesty goes on ignore.

Edited June 22, 2017 by juliann

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

 Would you have accepted any answers at that stage?

Of course, I would have accepted evidence.

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Mine is thin, too. But there is a predictive aspect of it like a game of chess. This move elicits that move, etc. So people really shouldn't be surprised when their best laid plans backfire on them....There are times when the Church has done the same thing. 

That's helpful.

While exploring the topic a bit further tonight, I came across Tragedy of the Commons....something I hadn't heard of before.

And it just happens to be something specifically addressed in conference last weekend by a visiting General Authority. Hmm.

[Honorentheos]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

First, I don't think discussing "truth" is meaningful unless all parties are agreed upon what truth is.  Just like the refugee thread is actually about theodicy.

You are using your own definition of community.  

I was offering a different binary to use rather than that of critic/believer. Just my opinion, but striped of the decoration of the particulars of thought about a subject there are far more similarities between critics and believers who are more interested in hammering home their belief about something with absolute certitude they've got the world figured out than they have in common with the variety of people who are willing to engage in a discussion from the position there may be more than they current believe there is to the topic. Toss in a little respect for the other party with whom one is engaged and I think a lot of people will agree discussions between members of this latter binary are interesting, engaging, and perceived as being valuable. And the engagement between members of the former side of the proposed binary tend to be either boring high-five exchanges or flame wars. Sometimes they are entertaining. Usually not so much, IMO, except as spectator sport dependent on the talents of those so engaged. I would argue this is true on just about any message board on most topics.

In that context I am suggesting two things related to your response above. First, seeking through engagement is the ends AND the means for those in the second set of the binary. Your statement seems like an argument for the first group of my proposed binary.

Second, perhaps it is my own definition. But I shared it with you with context. So isn't that part of the beauty of language that we use to better understand one another?

[Honorentheos]

5 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

While exploring the topic a bit further tonight, I came across Tragedy of the Commons....something I hadn't heard of before.

I'm curious how the tragedy of the commons might serve as an analogy in this context?

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

I'm curious how the tragedy of the commons might serve as an analogy in this context?

Wasn't initially thinking of that specific phrase in terms of the forum, but:

If there is no genuine give *and* take...if we only take from a pool, rather than also contribute...and if too many do likewise...the pillars of such a community will eventually become so drained/depleted as to be left with no constructive choice but to dissolve into the trees.

(That is what elves who tire of endless conflict eventually do.)

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

"I was offering a different binary to use rather than that of critic/believer."

Why do you see it as helpful to frame the dialogue in binary terms when it is much more complicated than that?

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Wasn't initially thinking of that specific phrase in terms of the forum, but:

If there is no genuine give *and* take...if we only take from a pool, rather than also contribute...and if too many do likewise...the pillars of such a community will eventually become so drained/depleted as to be left with no constructive choice but to dissolve into the trees.

(That is what elves who tire of endless conflict eventually do.)

Thanks, Hagoth.

 

The first time I had heard the term was when it was taught in a freshman year general class I took on natural resources. As I recall it, the concept was based on a hypothetical commons that all the members of a community had free access to in order to graze their cows. Because the resource was free, anyone could graze their cows as much as they wanted. But because rangelands are what they are, overgrazing of the commons would ultimately destroy it. If everyone kept to an agreed upon grazing rotation that gave fair access as well as allowed time for the grass to regrow this shared resource could be available indefinitely for everyone. But the tragedy comes from human nature. Because it’s free, and people always want to make sure they get the most they can, the system will almost inevitably break down without regulation because it only takes one attempt to get a bit more and then everyone will try to maximize what they can get or else be left out and disadvantaged to their neighbors. So there is intense pressure even on those who appreciate the value of protecting the commons and letting it restore itself to overgraze because it’s going to be destroyed anyway and all that they get is a small moral victory but less free grazing.

 

So if a message board is a form of commons, and as you suggest there has to be give and take to protect it’s value, I think it helps to first establish what the bigger perspective is that defines the commons. What is the benefit that is shared, what’s the equivalent of overgrazing? And then it may become more clear what needs to be done to protect the commons. What makes it interesting is that message boards are communities not resources themselves, so any decision is ultimately about community purpose and boundary maintenance in this context. IMO of course. Defining the first is necessary to performing the second.

[Honorentheos]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

"I was offering a different binary to use rather than that of critic/believer."

Why do you see it as helpful to frame the dialogue in binary terms when it is much more complicated than that?

I agree it is better seen as a spectrum, and each of us assumes different places on the spectrum from topic to topic, day to day. But it kept the point brief and closest to the existing framework where there was a binary already proposed. It would be a lot of lifting to try to both reframe the conversation and build an entire construct everyone already accepts in hypotheticals ("It's more complicated than binary") while I think we don't behave that way without serious mental effort to move outside of binary terms because people tend to automatically do so. I'd argue that is due to social-evolutionary reasons which implies they must also be successful but that isn't here nor there, right?

Anyway, I propose it because I think it makes for better discussion, too. Critics v. believers is just describing a combat sport most of the time. We tend to argue more about who is on which side, label one another in those contexts, brand people who may self-identify one way as really being on the other side...it's often mostly about boundary maintenance and definitions more than discussion IMO. Those who find value in the church get offended when someone tells them to be LDS is also to be x,y or z which they don't feel really is valid. But then apply label q, r, and s to the other opposing view in response. "You're a homophobic bigot!" "You're a hate-filled godless deviant!"

Good times.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Honorentheos

[juliann]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Wasn't initially thinking of that specific phrase in terms of the forum, but:

If there is no genuine give *and* take...if we only take from a pool, rather than also contribute...and if too many do likewise...the pillars of such a community will eventually become so drained/depleted as to be left with no constructive choice but to dissolve into the trees.

(That is what elves who tire of endless conflict eventually do.)

 

Ha, I nominate this as best post of the month.

[juliann]

8 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

That's helpful.

While exploring the topic a bit further tonight, I came across Tragedy of the Commons....something I hadn't heard of before.

And it just happens to be something specifically addressed in conference last weekend by a visiting General Authority. Hmm.

I had to look that up. It is a good analogy when applied to this board. Can you give more detail on the GA's use of it?

[juliann]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Of course, I would have accepted evidence.

I was thinking more in terms of the back and forth stuff that gets going rather than fact A, B, C type stuff. Also, it depends on the bar everyone sets for something to be valid evidence doesn't it? 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"I was offering a different binary to use rather than that of critic/believer."

Why do you see it as helpful to frame the dialogue in binary terms when it is much more complicated than that?

This is such an important point!  I think one of the best things we could do for this for all of us to cease trying to put people into one of two boxes:  critic or believer.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is such an important point!  I think one of the best things we could do for this for all of us to cease trying to put people into one of two boxes:  critic or believer.

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.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

3 minutes 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.

Agreed.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Thanks, Hagoth.

You're quite welcome. You offered great input and worthwhile questions.

I'll let the powers that be respond to those.

[hagoth7]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

...It is a good analogy...

...

Edited June 23, 2017 by hagoth7

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I was thinking more in terms of the back and forth stuff that gets going rather than fact A, B, C type stuff. Also, it depends on the bar everyone sets for something to be valid evidence doesn't it? 

I think when a lot of back and forth gets going, emotions rise and there is a tendancy with some to want to score quick points or people just talk past one another. I've been guilty of this and it doesn't promote discussion.

As for evidence, I would like to believe that rational people can use an objective standard from a reasonable person's point of view. This may be difficult to apply around the edges at times, but it is what should be used in my opinion.

[Teancum]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:39 PM, juliann said:

This is a thread for those who generally defend Mormonism. I am hearing more posters say they are thinking about leaving the board because of the relentless negativity of those who post here for the sole purpose of trashing church doctrine and practices. In essence, to show  those they are in perpetual disagreement with the error of our ways... without providing us anything better. It is a very unequal relationship. One side has to be ever on the defensive, the other only needs to criticize. It is the same parade every. single. day.  It is demanded that we be in a constant state of reflection and humility but there is no reciprocity from those who only point fingers. 

It begins with how a topic is phrased. Rather than asking for an explanation of the clash between a foundational belief that a man and a woman must join to become gods/creators, homophobia is put in a cannon and reloaded liberally. Rather than acknowledge a church leader has a responsibility to maintain order under his stewardship, it is framed in the most negative manner possible, he uses the mic to control what all members say. 

Short of banning those who refuse to engage with intellectual honesty rather than breeze in and out only to accuse, blame, and vilify,  what is the solution? Is anyone fulfilled by answering one loaded sentence after another? 

How can we make this a better experience? 

I have not been posting much here lately though I do read.  Since I am likely classed as a critic if you see things you think I do that add to what you describe above let me know and I will see how to improve.

[Storm Rider]

40 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think when a lot of back and forth gets going, emotions rise and there is a tendancy with some to want to score quick points or people just talk past one another. I've been guilty of this and it doesn't promote discussion.

As for evidence, I would like to believe that rational people can use an objective standard from a reasonable person's point of view. This may be difficult to apply around the edges at times, but it is what should be used in my opinion.

On spiritual topics what evidence would meet your standard?  This seems the issue in your scenario.  Spiritual topics do not lend easily to evidence given the some 2,000 years since the Savior's resurrection.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

On spiritual topics what evidence would meet your standard?  This seems the issue in your scenario.  Spiritual topics do not lend easily to evidence given the some 2,000 years since the Savior's resurrection.  

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.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I have not been posting much here lately though I do read.  Since I am likely classed as a critic if you see things you think I do that add to what you describe above let me know and I will see how to improve.

We go so far back I feel like I have watched your transition ...to the degree you have shared it. We all have bad hair days, all of us. I would put you in that category on your off days because you ultimately show that layer of graciousness that has always been there. It wouldn't be MDDB without Teancum.

[juliann]

1 hour 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.

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

Edited June 22, 2017 by juliann

[Pete Ahlstrom]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

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

How far do you get?