ex mormon Honest discussion about disdain

[MiserereNobis]

On 11/2/2017 at 5:06 PM, juliann said:

There is no talking to someone who thinks science and facts are unchanging or that reality is a storefront window. It is the new fundamentalism. 

 

I highly recommend reading this article by philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend:

"How to Defend Society Against Science"

[MiserereNobis]

20 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Only because they don't really understand our religious beliefs.

I'm not so sure about that, honestly. I think even people who understand LDS beliefs can still think they are strange. I think the reason that Mormon beliefs are viewed as high up on the strange meter is because traditional Christianity is the norm and Mormon beliefs, being within the Christian spectrum, are easily compared to what is considered normal. The difference between the norm and Mormonism then leads people to think that Mormon beliefs are strange.

I would imagine that in India, a Hindu wouldn't think that Mormon beliefs are any weirder than traditional Christian beliefs, since traditional Christianity wouldn't be a Hindu's norm.

Maybe the Hindu would even think that Mormonism is less strange because of the plurality of Gods

 

[thesometimesaint]

Give him all the attention he so rightly deserves. None at all.

[Avatar4321]

35 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Give him all the attention he so rightly deserves. None at all.

there is a huge part of me that is screaming "yeah!" Right now.

but another part is saying, if Jesus Christ died for him, then it seems like perhaps we should pay some attention to try to persuade him to come to Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

there is a huge part of me that is screaming "yeah!" Right now.

but another part is saying, if Jesus Christ died for him, then it seems like perhaps we should pay some attention to try to persuade him to come to Christ.

Anyone and everyone can repent. But I just don't have the energy to try to persuade people like him any more.

[california boy]

On 11/2/2017 at 3:47 PM, Maestrophil said:

So I made the mistake of commenting on the new Mormon Stories interview with Mike Norton.  It struck me in listening to his comments, as well as reading viewer comments how condescending to believers Mikes' entire approach is.  And Mike is at least 'pretending' to be civil - the commenters, not so much.  The last guy that commented, after I kind of asked why Mike was being so condescending to members said:

"Phillip Linford if you’re a part of an institution responsible for the suicides of young people, the divorce of otherwise happy couples, blatant dishonestly regarding their own history and many, many other distrusting things, I think your intelligence should be insulted. Do you know what the world thinks of Mormonism? It’s. It what you think. People think mormons are small brained fools."

I responded saying "at least you are honest about your arrogance" - probably not the most high minded reply on my part... His answer:

"Phillip arrogance, huh? What I’m saying is verifiable. I have science, facts and reality on my side. You have your feelings."

I would love to have really frank discussion about this here.  What are your views about this kind of treatment of church members.  Are they justified?  If so, how?  I am especially interested in hearing from those here who feel negatively towards the church, or who may even agree that members deserve scorn for association with the Church...  Or have felt that way in the past.

What drives this?  Is there a way to counter this?  Should members even try and engage with people like this?  What should be said?

I am open to all thoughts.  

MP

I am not sure if discussing what is driving this distain for Mormonism is a healthy discussion.  I think it puts members on the defense and mostly just disagree with the reasons why others don't like the Mormon church.  When the church polls as the most disliked christian church in America, perhaps the discussion should be more centered around what the church could do to gain more respect in the community.  I think that if there needs to be a change, it has to come from the church and the members themselves, and not from the outside.  And actually I think most members don't think anything should change.  They write these kinds of comments off as nothing more than some anti-Mormon hater.  

When I was active and involved in the church, I had very much the same attitude.  People outside the church would generally react favorably when I told them I was Mormon.  But I found out that they were saying what they though I wanted to hear.  Because after I left the church and told them that I used to be Mormon, the comments were more in line with what the polls are suggesting. 

[changed]

On 11/2/2017 at 5:47 PM, Maestrophil said:

So I made the mistake of commenting on the new Mormon Stories interview with Mike Norton.  It struck me in listening to his comments, as well as reading viewer comments how condescending to believers Mikes' entire approach is.  And Mike is at least 'pretending' to be civil - the commenters, not so much.  The last guy that commented, after I kind of asked why Mike was being so condescending to members said:

"Phillip Linford if you’re a part of an institution responsible for the suicides of young people, the divorce of otherwise happy couples, blatant dishonestly regarding their own history and many, many other distrusting things, I think your intelligence should be insulted. Do you know what the world thinks of Mormonism? It’s. It what you think. People think mormons are small brained fools."

I responded saying "at least you are honest about your arrogance" - probably not the most high minded reply on my part... His answer:

"Phillip arrogance, huh? What I’m saying is verifiable. I have science, facts and reality on my side. You have your feelings."

I would love to have really frank discussion about this here.  What are your views about this kind of treatment of church members.  Are they justified?  If so, how?  I am especially interested in hearing from those here who feel negatively towards the church, or who may even agree that members deserve scorn for association with the Church...  Or have felt that way in the past.

What drives this?  Is there a way to counter this?  Should members even try and engage with people like this?  What should be said?

I am open to all thoughts.  

MP

Some of it, to me, is a proving ground.  To understand anything, you have to tear it apart, argue with it, debate it, push it to see how strong it is.  If you push it, and it crumbles - reveales itself to be hollow with no substance, you have your answer.  If you push it, and it stands firm, reveals itself to be solid and stable, there is another answer.  To see beyond the surface of anything is to test it and fight against it.  Many (like myself) seek others who are actually able to fight back, who are not afraid to answer questions.

Time is limited, so we are blunt.

Your reactions either solidify our view of reality, or change it.  

Edited November 4, 2017 by changed

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Anyone and everyone can repent. But I just don't have the energy to try to persuade people like him any more.

 

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Anyone and everyone can repent. But I just don't have the energy to try to persuade people like him any more.

I understand. I've felt that way many times before. Probably will many times after. But i keep thinking of Nephi the Son of Helaman. The people rejected him, tried to throw him in jail, eventually dispersing after arguments and yet when the Lord spoke He immediately went back out and preached.

he is one of my heroes. I hope to be like him someday.

[JAHS]

I think Jesus said it best:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matt 7: 6)

[Physics Guy]

At least as I understand it, all the big differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity are based on revelations to Joseph Smith. And even though few of those big differences come from the Book of Mormon itself, by far the biggest reason for believing that Smith was a prophet seems to be that one is so impressed by the Book of Mormon as to think it must be a divine revelation. 

By definition non-Mormons don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and we don't see anything superhuman about the Book of Mormon. We should still be polite to Mormons, no matter what we may think about them, deep down. And there are many Mormons who are personally convincing if you get to know them, in the sense that one has to give their religion the benefit of the doubt for their sake. But can non-Mormons respect Mormonism itself, as a reasonable and responsible viewpoint?

I think this depends on what exactly Joseph Smith was, if he wasn't a prophet, and on what exactly the Book of Mormon is, if it isn't a divine revelation. If one can make the case that Smith was a good person, and that the Book of Mormon is a good book, then it's not so hard for non-Mormons to feel that Mormons have overestimated Smith and the Book, but not ridiculously overestimated them—perhaps not even unreasonably. But if the only thing Smith can be, if he wasn't a prophet, is a con artist who exploited women, then it's hard for non-Mormons to respect people that revere Smith so much. And if the only thing the Book of Mormon can be, if it isn't true Scripture, is poor Bible fan-fiction, then it's hard for non-Mormons to respect people that admire the Book of Mormon so much.

Maybe there's nothing to do but accept that. But if there's a desire to have genuine respect from non-Mormons, then I think the way to get it is by could be called neutral apologetics. What I mean is this.

Positive Mormon apologetics tries to defend Smith and the Book of Mormon as prophet and Scripture. Negative apologetics seeks to defend them against the charges of being con man and fake. Neither of those kinds of apologetics are about establishing Smith or the Book as simply good rather than bad. Making that more moderate case, that won't gain any converts but might gain respect, would be in between positive and negative apologetics. So call it neutral apologetics, I guess.

Neutral apologetics would mean leaving it for later to argue that Smith was a prophet, and just presenting all the ways in which he was a good man apart from his prophethood. Leave it for later to argue whether he had true revelations from God, and just explain the admirable new moral principles which he introduced. Leave it for later to argue that the Book of Mormon is genuine Scripture, or genuine history, and just present its impressive stories, images, precepts, and poetry.

If Mormons can do that, I think that non-Mormons will respect Mormonism. But don't Mormons already do that? Well, in my experience, honestly: not so much.

I've heard a lot more about how the Book of Mormon has chiasmus and Hebraic wordplay than about what it has that would still be awesome even if Joseph Smith somehow did make it up. I've heard a lot more about why Joseph Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon than I have about good things he said or did apart from the Book.

That may well not be Mormons' fault. Perhaps the wonderful pearls among Book of Mormon passages are too familiar to Mormons to get brought up much; perhaps Mormons have too much reverence for Joseph Smith's supernatural excellences to spend much time discussing his merely natural achievements or virtues. For whatever reasons, though, my own discussions with Mormons have been focused on whether Smith was a prophet or a fraud, and whether the Book of Mormon is a revelation or a hoax, rather than on whether Smith or the Book was simply good versus bad. Perhaps neutral apologetics is a neglected middle ground.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Physics Guy

[CV75]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure if discussing what is driving this distain for Mormonism is a healthy discussion.  I think it puts members on the defense and mostly just disagree with the reasons why others don't like the Mormon church.  When the church polls as the most disliked christian church in America, perhaps the discussion should be more centered around what the church could do to gain more respect in the community.  I think that if there needs to be a change, it has to come from the church and the members themselves, and not from the outside.  And actually I think most members don't think anything should change.  They write these kinds of comments off as nothing more than some anti-Mormon hater.  

When I was active and involved in the church, I had very much the same attitude.  People outside the church would generally react favorably when I told them I was Mormon.  But I found out that they were saying what they though I wanted to hear.  Because after I left the church and told them that I used to be Mormon, the comments were more in line with what the polls are suggesting. 

On the other hand, I prefer to read the whole article and consider the more expert conclusions:

“Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons receive neutral ratings on average…"

“44% of Americans say they know someone who is Mormon [considered to be a small group, and “small groups are less familiar to most Americans”]… Knowing someone from a religious group is linked with having relatively more positive views of that group.”

[mfbukowski]

On 11/2/2017 at 4:10 PM, JLHPROF said:

We give far too little credence to the existence of spirits.  We are all capable  (and sometimes guilty) of carrying a spirit of contention, anger, defensiveness, or some other spirit that prevents good discussion.

That said, when someone with a mind made up and an angry spirit bashes on Mormonism there is zero point in engaging them.  They couldn't be convinced by a angel from heaven so dark is the spirit prompting their response.

Not to derail, maybe another thread would be appropriate but I have a question about your use- and Mormon use in general, because I know of no other group which speaks this way, of the word "spirit" used this way, as in "a spirit of contention"

I think of spirits in the classic Moron sense-  person who has a spirit body.

So what is a "spirit of contention".  Is it a cloud of "contention" floating around?   Is it an otherwise reasonable person suddenly possessed by an actual (spiritually) physical being, as in demon possession?

I have never understood the expression and I have heard it only in church.   If needed I will start a thread.

I have simply taken it as a figure of speech, for someone who is angry.  But you speak of "the existence of spirits" as if a spirit of contention "exists" somehow outside of a person's attitude in a given situation, as if "contention" is an entity unto itself.

I don't get it.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/2/2017 at 4:54 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

No. Anyone who has even a modicum of sensitivity to the impressions of the Holy Ghost won't need you to counter anything in such circumstances. Those who don't won't listen to you either.

I agree with this in theory but man, I am always sorely tempted to "represent".  It is hard for me to find the balance.  If they are aggressive I want to punch them in the nose and pull out the stops!  My problem is that I am very confident in philosophy and have dealt with every possible issue for myself so I feel frankly that those who want to contend with me are just at best uninformed and if they are aggressively uninformed I find that inexcusable and just want to wallop them to at least get their attention.   I want to make them feel stupid to prompt them to at least get educated.

It's extremely hard for me.  But I guess most hereabouts know that.  But really I do it to try to shock them to show them how uninformed they are.  I need an apologetics counselor.   

I mean how do you actually teach people who are willfully ignorant?

Isn't there some duty there to THEM to try to turn them around?   It seems like just NOT contending is letting them walk away in ignorance.   I am very confused.

And I know that in certain cases, my approach has turned people around.   Sigh.

Edited November 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 11/2/2017 at 9:29 PM, Meerkat said:

The unfortunate thing about disdain is that it distracts us from the things we were sent here to learn.  You take just about any subject and we are so polarized.  We fill our pockets with zingers to put each other in our place.  What do any of us really know for sure that is worth putting each other down for? 

Okay.  We are talking about religious beliefs here.  Is belonging to the right church the important thing?  I read the parable of the Good Samaritan, and I wonder about that.   If I tell you that I have a beautiful testimony of why I believe as I do, of what value is it if my actions don't square with what I say I believe?  

Regardless of denomination, probably most would agree that we want to learn how to be patient and kind.  We want the kind of charity Paul talked about in 1 Cor. 13.  The kind that's not easily provoked, that thinks no evil, that bears, believes and endures all things.  Moroni took charity a giant step further when he said we should "pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that (we) may be filled with this love."  Why? Maybe so we can walk in His shoes a bit.  Maybe so we can really become more like He is. 

How can we learn these things without relationships?  Reading about charity isn't enough.  We need these relationships with people who look at the world differently than we do to learn how to treat them how we want to be treated.  Will we always do it?  Probably not.  But we have opportunities every day, including right here, to treat people with charity or disdain.  What's it going to be?  Maybe that was the point of Maestrophil's question.

Yeah I suppose I need to realize that they will get it on the other side anyways and ignore them here?  But I want to help them!!   A little tough love can be a good thing, right?

[mfbukowski]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:11 PM, The Nehor said:

There are few things as pitiable and pathetic as a moron with delusions of rationality.

That totally nails my problem with being charitable.  I can't deal with them.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/3/2017 at 4:24 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I highly recommend reading this article by philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend:

"How to Defend Society Against Science"

YES!!!!!!

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure if discussing what is driving this distain for Mormonism is a healthy discussion.  I think it puts members on the defense and mostly just disagree with the reasons why others don't like the Mormon church.  When the church polls as the most disliked christian church in America, perhaps the discussion should be more centered around what the church could do to gain more respect in the community.  I think that if there needs to be a change, it has to come from the church and the members themselves, and not from the outside.  And actually I think most members don't think anything should change.  They write these kinds of comments off as nothing more than some anti-Mormon hater.  

When I was active and involved in the church, I had very much the same attitude.  People outside the church would generally react favorably when I told them I was Mormon.  But I found out that they were saying what they though I wanted to hear.  Because after I left the church and told them that I used to be Mormon, the comments were more in line with what the polls are suggesting. 

I actually find this positive.

I have little desire to be classed among "Christians" since they have co-opted the term.  I would rather be classed as a New Religion no one knows about so we can get our message out without sectarian prejudices.

Give us some time,  We are perfectly situated to become the way to bring secular people to Christ.  Of course your gay issue clouds your perception of that

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

if they are aggressively uninformed I find that inexcusable and just want to wallop them to at least get there attention.   I want to make them feel stupid to prompt them to at least get educated.

Well, that was Socrates' approach. Too bad it got him killed  But hey, no Socrates, no Plato. No Plato, no Platonism. No Platonism, and you wouldn't have your favorite philosophical punching bag 

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have little desire to be classed among "Christians" since they have co-opted the term.  I would rather be classed as a New Religion no one knows about so we can get our message out without sectarian prejudices.

You're always the surprising Mormon, Mark, and I love it. Your combining of Mormonism with Rorty and Dewey is always intriguing (especially since the vast majority of Mormons, I think, would look on relativism as a heresy). And now this: you don't want to be called Christian. It seems to me that Mormons spend a lot of time and energy fighting to be in the Christian camp.

Personally I see and understand your approach and as an outsider think it might have merit.

Hmmm, you are like Socrates -- a Mormon gadfly that can irritate both those inside and outside of the LDS church. Ever read Edward Abby? He was a wonderful contrarian gadfly. He was an environmentalist who annoyed environmentalists. A cowboy who annoyed cowboys. A "you-name-it" who annoyed whomever was in the group that tried to control the definition of "you-name-it."

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not to derail, maybe another thread would be appropriate but I have a question about your use- and Mormon use in general, because I know of no other group which speaks this way, of the word "spirit" used this way, as in "a spirit of contention"

I think of spirits in the classic Moron sense-  person who has a spirit body.

So what is a "spirit of contention".  Is it a cloud of "contention" floating around?   Is it an otherwise reasonable person suddenly possessed by an actual (spiritually) physical being, as in demon possession?

I have never understood the expression and I have heard it only in church.   If needed I will start a thread.

I have simply taken it as a figure of speech, for someone who is angry.  But you speak of "the existence of spirits" as if a spirit of contention "exists" somehow outside of a person's attitude in a given situation, as if "contention" is an entity unto itself.

I don't get it.

In my belief, based in my understanding of Mormon doctrine there are both.

The Spirit of Christ for instance is given to all men, yet we don't believe that the resurrected Christ literally put a bit of his personage in us.  And in Mormonism we differentiate between the gift of the Holy Ghost and the personage of the Holy Ghost.

So yes, there are spirits as in self aware people, and spirits not representing a personal identity.

When I walked into Adam-ondi-ahman I felt overwhelmed by the Lord's spirit.  When I visited Hawn's Mill it was the opposite.  Places and things have spirits too.  Walk into certain bars and stores and you feel it immediately.  And it's not a personage possessing you.

Edited November 5, 2017 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You're always the surprising Mormon, Mark, and I love it. Your combining of Mormonism with Rorty and Dewey is always intriguing (especially since the vast majority of Mormons, I think, would look on relativism as a heresy). And now this: you don't want to be called Christian. It seems to me that Mormons spend a lot of time and energy fighting to be in the Christian camp.

Personally I see and understand your approach and as an outsider think it might have merit.

Hmmm, you are like Socrates -- a Mormon gadfly that can irritate both those inside and outside of the LDS church. Ever read Edward Abby? He was a wonderful contrarian gadfly. He was an environmentalist who annoyed environmentalists. A cowboy who annoyed cowboys. A "you-name-it" who annoyed whomever was in the group that tried to control the definition of "you-name-it."

Yes I have read Abby.  I enjoy stirring the pot. 

 I am trying to get Mormons to use some grey matter but actually I am pretty representative of many Mormon thinkers of late who have to make their living being more moderate in tone because .... they have to make a living working with mainstream Mormon publishers or work for BYU

Here is a quote that is relevant to the points you raise about Dewey et al and scholasticism from a well-loved Mormon philosopher, David Paulsen, speaking about how well Pragmatism fits with Mormonism.  But his tone is quite scholarly while mine is argumentative.  

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126

 

Quote

 

B. Divine Personality

On the basis of his criterion of pragmatic meaning, James concludes that the belief that God is nonpersonal is meaningless while the belief that he is personal is pragmatically warranted. Considering the former point, James charges that “the absolute” of monistic idealism (like the god of scholastic theism) is also “a metaphysical monster” in that “it is neither intelligence nor will, neither a self nor a collection of selves, neither truthful, good nor beautiful. . . . [It] neither acts nor suffers, nor loves nor hates; it has no needs, desires, or aspirations, no failures or successes, friends or enemies, victories or defeats” (James 1977, 26–27). ¹¹ In short, the absolute is not a person and, lacking personality, seemingly calls for no vital human responses. Thus, by the negative test of the fifth criterion of pragmatic meaning, belief in the absolute is devoid of significant pragmatic meaning. On the same ground, James rejects “The Unknowable” of Herbert Spencer: “Mere existence commands no reverence whatever, or any other emotion, until its quality is specified. Neither does mere cosmic power, unless it[End Page 119] makes for something which can claim kinship from our sympathies. . . . As well might you speak of being irreverent to Space or disrespectful of the Equator” (cited in Perry 1935, 1:486). ¹²

Although James rejected substantial elements of scholastic theism, he nonetheless believed that theism (if purified and corrected) offers the best chance of an adequate understanding of God. This is because it alone conceives of God in terms of personality and personal relationships. Indeed, pragmatically, it is essential, James said, that God be conceived as the deepest power in the universe and that he

be conceived under the form of a mental personality. The personality need not be determined intrinsically any further than is involved in the holding of certain things dear, and in the recognition of our dispositions towards those things, the things themselves being all good and righteous things. . . . Extrinsically considered, so to speak, God’s personality is to be regarded, like any other personality, as something lying outside of my own and other than me, and whose existence I simply come upon and find. A power not ourselves, then, which not only makes for righteousness, but means it, and which recognizes us. . . . In whatever other respects the divine personality may differ from ours or may resemble it, the two are consanguineous at least in this—that both have purposes for which they care, and each can hear the other’s call.

(James 1979b, 97–98) ¹³

 

The challenges of the human being’s moral and spiritual life require help and guidance, which only a divine person and co-worker can provide. Understanding God to be a personal “thou” who invites our participation in bringing about his purposes and who hears and responds to our calls for help with our own purposes is rich in both predictive import and practical consequences. ¹⁴ We expect to receive such help and guidance, and the expectation gives hope, overcomes fear, and influences conduct. ¹⁵

 

And there are many others as well, as I point out in my review of Givens, which appeared in Interpreter.  I quote it here from my piece just because it is easier for me to look it up where I know the exact passage is available. 

Terryl Givens:     https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/      *

Quote

 

Setting the fall of man into an even larger context, as we saw, was Smith’s doctrine of pre-mortal existence, in which those born into mortality successfully “kept” their “first estate.” These re-invented master narratives that span both dispensational and cosmic history convey a framework utterly incompatible with Calvinist readings of human origins or human depravity. At the same time, Mormon conceptions of a human nature unencumbered by original sin or inherited depravity comport perfectly with the nineteenth-century zenith of liberal humanism, with its celebration of human potential, sense of boundlessness, and Romantic optimism. But for Smith, those conceptions become grounded in a totally reconfigured human anthropology. As a consequence, he sees God’s plan— from the beginning— as being about human elevation rather than remedy, advancement rather than repair. In all this, Smith returns [Page 76]his version of Christian thought to a pre-Augustinian state, starkly different from most of the theology of his day. The early Christian rejection of Origen’s doctrines of premortality and apokatastasis (restoration to one’s primordial position), writes one religious historian, ensured the supremacy “of a Christian theology whose central concerns were human sinfulness, not human potentiality; divine determination, not human freedom and responsibility.” (191)

This early twentieth-century reorientation from the communal to the individual, and from other-worldly bonds to this-worldly character formation, was further enhanced by important developments in the social context of the era. The key influence in this regard was the mania for progressivism that swept the period — a philosophy that emphasized the amelioration of social conditions and the blossoming of human potential through the improvement of technology, government, and education. Progress became the mantra across the social and cultural spectrum. As a prominent voice of the movement declared, “democracy must stand or fall on a platform of human perfectibility.” “Human nature” itself, he argued, was improvable “by institutions.” The convergence of such optimism about human potential with Mormon theologies of eternal progress was fortuitous, coming as it did on the heels of polygamy’s abandonment. As Matthew Bowman has argued, “the early twentieth century was a time of rehabilitation for Mormons, when they worked to reinvent a religion shorn of polygamy and forced into American ways of being, and progressivism gave them the concepts, language, and tools to preserve their distinctiveness within adaptation.” The practical consequence of these developments, in and outside the church, was a new emphasis on individual perfectibility. In Smith’s thought, humankind’s role in the process of sanctification centers on his submission to divine law. It is this submission, Smith declared, that makes Christ’s freely offered sacrifice personally efficacious, allowing individuals to become “perfected and sanctified.” For this reason, Mormons hold, “obedience is the first law of heaven” (307–308).4

 

So yes I am a gadfly but hardly off base when it comes to the direction of contemporary Mormon thought. 

*

Quote

See also Matthew Bowman, “Eternal Progression: Mormonism and American Progressivism,” in Mormonism and American Politics Since 1945, ed. Jana Reiss and Randall Balmer (New York: Columbia University Press, forthcoming). Indeed, Thomas Alexander has characterized the theology of Roberts, Widtsoe, and Talmage as “progressive theology”; see his “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine,” Sunstone 5.4 (July–August 1980): 24–33.

 

[Meerkat]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah I suppose I need to realize that they will get it on the other side anyways and ignore them here?  But I want to help them!!   A little tough love can be a good thing, right?

That's pretty good, Bukowski.  I agree with you that we don't ignore people who fall within our sphere of influence.  I also agree that love must be tough when appropriate, as in when dealing with an addict or a jerk.  But for most adults on this board, we are free to think things through to be enticed one way or another by a still, small voice.  I want to help people when asked.  But I feel no compulsion to fix people who are sorting out their own view of their lives.  Each of us has that privilege.  I like our 11th Article of Faith: "11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."  That means no compulsion.  I don't appreciate having my arm twisted, and don't particularly enjoy twisting arms.  I enjoy a lively discussion once in awhile and learn from them, whether from members of my faith or not.  Comparatively few people in the world will every hear the name of Jesus Christ in this life, or understand what He did for them.  That being the case, in order for God to be fair to all of His children, there must be a provision beyond the veil for everyone to have an equal opportunity to hear the Good News.   I think that's what the Apostle Peter meant in 1 Peter 4:6 "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. "  In the mean time, regardless of the name of the church we attend, I believe our example is The Good Samaritan.  John 4:9 illustrates the division between the Jews and the Samaritans.  "Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, asketh drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?  for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.  Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."  Jesus was reaching His hand out to the Samaritan woman, with whom the Jews normally had no dealings with.  I notice He did not judge her because she was not of His faith.  Why should we?  He made the point that our works are important, regardless of our religion, with the parable of the Good Samaritan.  My take is that when we or anyone does good, we worship God and are doing the Lord's work.  Doing good is an act of faith in God.  It prepares us for the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost, in my opinion, and receiving the Living Water Christ was offering.  Some on this board may not agree.  But that's how I see it.  

Edited November 5, 2017 by Meerkat

[Meerkat]

13 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

But if the only thing Smith can be, if he wasn't a prophet, is a con artist who exploited women, then it's hard for non-Mormons to respect people that revere Smith so much. And if the only thing the Book of Mormon can be, if it isn't true Scripture, is poor Bible fan-fiction, then it's hard for non-Mormons to respect people that admire the Book of Mormon so much.

Maybe there's nothing to do but accept that.

I hesitate to ask, but isn't the above statement the definition of disdain?  Check the context in Physics Guy's post.  Maybe this isn't exactly exactly what he intended to come across.  I thought it was an interesting statement, considering the subject "An honest discussion about Disdain."  Freudian slip?

Edited November 5, 2017 by Meerkat

[thesometimesaint]

On 11/3/2017 at 4:24 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I highly recommend reading this article by philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend:

"How to Defend Society Against Science"

Science: Is just our best explanation for any how given the observation we currently have

Religion: Is just our best explanation for any why given the observation we currently have.

One without the other is dead being alone.

Edited November 5, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Stargazer]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:11 PM, The Nehor said:

There are few things as pitiable and pathetic as a moron with delusions of rationality.

Holy cow, you come up with some really pithy sayings sometimes!  I love it.

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Stargazer