hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: A dated idea I am hoping we will toss soon. Well, that's one way to decrease the membership.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: That you don't see your own comments as doing the same, just in a much broader way also impacts the quality of conversation. "I'm thinking that this belief may be more of a vice than a virtue for active believing members." It is personal when you label a group many here identify with as acting in "immoral or wicked" ways (definition of vice on google) Calm, We all have vices. I absolutely do. I tried to be very careful with the OP to not directly point a finger of blame at any individual. Anyone could take the same kind of offense to a talk in conference when a church leader points out vices or sins or behavior that is unbecoming of the values of the church. I want to have an honest discussion about concerns I have with the one true church narrative. This is different than pointing a finger at me directly and making the discussion about me, which again is specifically against message board rules.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: Like every group that has ever existed...for example, the US government or any play group set up by either kids or parents. 100%, that is exactly what I'm saying. All groups do this including Mormonism. That doesn't make it a value we should aspire too though. I think the call for a Zion like community is an aspiration for a better way.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: How is it not personal when you yourself have made it about the personal beliefs of others? Why is it appropriate for you to condemn as immoral or wicked (a vice) beliefs of others, but to question the status of your own is against the rules, somehow personal while yours is not? This board began in part because ZLMB functioned as placing targets on believing LDS' backs where others could come and attack their beliefs because they were known, but hide behind their own anonymity because their own beliefs would not be immediately apparent and thus could not be analyses, criticized, or attacked in the same manner. Somehow I doubt the mods agree with your interpretation of the rules. I may be wrong, of course. Hopefully one will pop up soon and weigh in. You've been around much longer than I, and I have no clue about the original purpose of this board. I see this as an important distinction, but I'm not hoping the Mods weigh in. I typically prefer less interference as I think we can generally work things out ourselves. I think the reason making a discussion personal is against the rules is that it can be very hurtful and not productive to a respectful dialogue. Remember I've had people on this very thread suggest that I should leave Mormonism because I don't fit and call me an outsider. Imagine how hurtful that can be when you already feel like you don't fit into the mainstream. I still find good in Mormonism and want to try and engage in positive ways. I don't rock the boat in my home ward, so having thoughtful discussions online is a coping mechanism for me. Its easy for me to understand why so many people just leave Mormonism all together because of cultural shunning like this, but I don't want to. I want to stay engaged for many reasons and I feel like I can contribute to the community in positive ways even though many others consider my ideas threatening and express their feelings by way of exclusionary language. Its one thing for someone to say that I'm wrong and to disagree with me, those comments are acceptable if done respectfully. But comments questioning my membership and calling me an outsider are crossing the line in my opinion.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: So your beliefs about godly authority come from the same flawed place as those you disagree with, and both your and my opinion is equal in terms of evidence to support it? Our starting position is equal, yes, because the source of both ideas are human. Next step is to consider the arguments and their persuasive force and value. I believe my argument is much stronger on those merits.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 59 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If God does not have any authority then we do not need religion. There are many other arguments for the value of religion. Authority is a weak argument in my opinion.
Tacenda Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You've been around much longer than I, and I have no clue about the original purpose of this board. I see this as an important distinction, but I'm not hoping the Mods weigh in. I typically prefer less interference as I think we can generally work things out ourselves. I think the reason making a discussion personal is against the rules is that it can be very hurtful and not productive to a respectful dialogue. Remember I've had people on this very thread suggest that I should leave Mormonism because I don't fit and call me an outsider. Imagine how hurtful that can be when you already feel like you don't fit into the mainstream. I still find good in Mormonism and want to try and engage in positive ways. I don't rock the boat in my home ward, so having thoughtful discussions online is a coping mechanism for me. Its easy for me to understand why so many people just leave Mormonism all together because of cultural shunning like this, but I don't want to. I want to stay engaged for many reasons and I feel like I can contribute to the community in positive ways even though many others consider my ideas threatening and express their feelings by way of exclusionary language. Its one thing for someone to say that I'm wrong and to disagree with me, those comments are acceptable if done respectfully. But comments questioning my membership and calling me an outsider are crossing the line in my opinion. (bold mine) YUP!
Calm Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) "Its one thing for someone to say that I'm wrong and to disagree with me, those comments are acceptable if done respectfully. But comments questioning my membership and calling me an outsider are crossing the line in my opinion." I am not disagreeing with that, but I also think calling a core belief of many posters wicked and immoral as crossing the line as well even if done broadly. If one says "the Swiss have filthy habits" (chosen for absurdity), one would expect individual Swiss to take offense of their portrayal. Choosing to label a standard belief held by many, if not a vast majority of, believing Mormons a "vice" is not just disagreement nor is it respectful. Downplaying the offensiveness by saying " we all have vices" does not change the above any more than saying "we all have bad habits, sometimes I leave the toilet seat up" alters the offensiveness of saying "the Swiss have filthy habits". Edited November 28, 2017 by Calm 2
CV75 Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I never said I'm an outsider, I'm about as inside the Mormon world as a person can be, albeit I'm unorthodox these days, but still quite orthoprax. But regardless, I don't think my personal beliefs are important to this discussion. Quit trying to make this personal, please, last time I checked that was against the rules here. I thought "outsider" is what you meant by being in the borderlands... anyway, my approach to this is certainly is not personal; quit trying to make it so. I am asking: Can you address the salient point about how someone in the "borderlands" can expect to teach the overwhelming majority of LDS how to properly understand and apply a doctrine that, in the borderlands, is considered the inspiration of their extreme behaviors?
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Our starting position is equal, yes, because the source of both ideas are human. Next step is to consider the arguments and their persuasive force and value. I believe my argument is much stronger on those merits. What is the value of not believing that God gives men His authority to act in His name?
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, Calm said: "Its one thing for someone to say that I'm wrong and to disagree with me, those comments are acceptable if done respectfully. But comments questioning my membership and calling me an outsider are crossing the line in my opinion." I am not disagreeing with that, but I also think calling a core belief of many posters wicked and immoral as crossing the line as well even if done broadly. If one says "the Swiss have filthy habits" (chosen for absurdity), one would expect individual Swiss to take offense of their portrayal. Choosing to label a standard belief held by many, if not a vast majority of, believing Mormons a "vice" is not just disagreement nor is it respectful. Downplaying the offensiveness by saying " we all have vices" does not change the above any more than saying "we all have bad habits, sometimes I leave the toilet seat up" alters the offensiveness of saying "the Swiss have filthy habits". Let me ask for clarity sake, is your concern with my use of the term vice, and the definition for vice that you queried, or is it my entire OP which is asking for commentary about the possible negative implications of a church teaching. If the latter, could you explain the distinction in your mind between having respectful dialogue about church topics some of which people will disagree with, and the way that I positioned this OP? I would like your honest feedback on where you think I went wrong, as I explained earlier, I was trying to be very careful with the OP to not offend and to have a discussion that would be productive. If I failed in this effort I would like to understand how I could have worded things differently, yet still have this conversation. If this kind of conversation is out of bounds in your opinion, I would like to understand why.
pogi Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 21 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Because it contradicts fundamental principles that I believe are universally true. The inherent inaliable rights that all humans posses. The concept of God being no respector of persons. The relational construct of a parent/child and the divine. divine. The corrupt idea that some people are select and chosen over others has roots in the history of tribalism. Tribes of people throughout history have privileged their group over others, and they have used religion throughout time as a mechanism for reinforcing this idea. So many evils have been perpetuated throughout history and justified through the use of this idea. An honest evaluation of its merits doesn’t allow me to see any redeeming qualities in this concept. I find it evil, and I fundamentally reject it. If there is some truth to this idea, then I can’t see it. I don’t see anything virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy about this idea. I find it antithetical to the gospel. All people have the "inherent inalienable rights" to the authority of God? Inalienable? So basically everything we do, say, and think is authorized by God? Murder, adultery, etc. etc. it is all authorized by our inalienable rights? God authorizes both sides of contradicting doctrines? We have been through this before about the concept of God not being a respecter of persons. That is to be understood in the context of Cornelius, that the authorized gospel is not to be reserved for the Jews only, but that God will provide every person with the opportunity to receive the blessings available through the plan of salvation by the hands of his authorized servants through baptism into his authorized church. That is where that phrase came from. All are free to partake.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 10 minutes ago, CV75 said: I thought "outsider" is what you meant by being in the borderlands... anyway, my approach to this is certainly is not personal; quit trying to make it so. I am asking: Can you address the salient point about how someone in the "borderlands" can expect to teach the overwhelming majority of LDS how to properly understand and apply a doctrine that, in the borderlands, is considered the inspiration of their extreme behaviors? This is still about me proving my credentials? How is that not personal?
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: What is the value of not believing that God gives men His authority to act in His name? I think I answered that in the OP with all the negatives I associate with this kind of exclusive authority claim. I would like to hear what you think the value is for having this belief.
CV75 Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 Just now, hope_for_things said: This is still about me proving my credentials? How is that not personal? "Someone" is not you... If i wanted to make it personal, I would have said "you." Can you address the salient point now? 1
Calm Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Let me ask for clarity sake, is your concern with my use of the term vice, and the definition for vice that you queried... Yes, along with the fact you are acting as if you are not speaking of personal things when indeed you are.
CV75 Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Calm said: Yes, along with the fact you are acting as if you are not speaking of personal things when indeed you are. It's called dishing it out and not being able to take what is imagined to be dished out in return. 1
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think I answered that in the OP with all the negatives I associate with this kind of exclusive authority claim. I would like to hear what you think the value is for having this belief. But you're not just talking about this one authoritative claim though, you are saying that any and all divine authoritative claims are negatives (the very idea of prophets, for example, is a negative to you if i'm understanding correctly). What is your evidence for that? Is tribalism it? (Just trying to clarify if I've understood the scope of your argument against tribalism correctly).
Calm Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 1 minute ago, CV75 said: It's called dishing it out and not being able to take what is imagined to be dished out in return. That was one of the things that called my attention to that part of the conversation.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, pogi said: All people have the "inherent inalienable rights" to the authority of God? Inalienable? So basically everything we do, say, and think is authorized by God? Murder, adultery, etc. etc. it is all authorized by our inalienable rights? God authorizes both sides of contradicting doctrines? No, I'm talking about equality, human dignity, and agency. Not sanction from God for actions people take. But a fundamental belief that people are dignified and entitled to respect, fair treatment and social justice. People are responsible for their own actions. 6 minutes ago, pogi said: We have been through this before about the concept of God not being a respecter of persons. That is to be understood in the context of Cornelius, that the authorized gospel is not to be reserved for the Jews only, but that God will provide every person with the opportunity to receive the blessings available through the plan of salvation by the hands of his authorized servants through baptism into his authorized church. That is where that phrase came from. All are free to partake. I don't remember the specific conversation, but I don't agree with your context for interpreting the idea. I see it as a broad and fundamental principle, even if the context of that one verse is specific to certain historical events. I understand the correlated Mormon teaching, I just think its wrong, and it contradiction with the overarching gospel message of inclusion. The whole idea of authorized servants, I don't even see a strong argument for that from the scriptures. I think Joseph and Brigham got carried away with these ideas and took them too far. I don't see it as central to the gospel message. All are not only free to partake, but all have equal opportunity to partake and I don't believe any are constrained to go through the specific hoops of the Mormon hierarchy or ritual.
pogi Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think I answered that in the OP with all the negatives I associate with this kind of exclusive authority claim. I would like to hear what you think the value is for having this belief. If we are to believe that all men are authorized to speak for God all the time, then all beliefs are of equal value. The value of this teaching is in understanding that not all teachings, principles, practices, etc. are of equal value in the eyes of God.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, CV75 said: "Someone" is not you... If i wanted to make it personal, I would have said "you." Can you address the salient point now? I could make an argument that someone in the boarderlands is more qualified to comment on these ideas because they aren't as likely to be constrained to follow the party line. Certainly anyone who's spent their life in the church and the culture has a certain amount of experience, enough to make observations about it. But I don't think membership is required. Many non-member scholars in Mormon studies like Jan Shipps or Ann Taves are excellent scholars and have contributed to our community in very valuable ways. The most important thing is the content of the discussion, not formal qualifications of any individual person.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Yes, along with the fact you are acting as if you are not speaking of personal things when indeed you are. Ok, so it was the term vice firstly, and I can edit the OP and replace that term with something else. I don't understand the second part though. I complained that people on the thread were making the discussion about me personally, which is against board rules. That is different than talking about subjects that any participants can feel a personal connection too. I imagine all threads on this board would meet your criteria of speaking of personal things to some degree or another.
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: But you're not just talking about this one authoritative claim though, you are saying that any and all divine authoritative claims are negatives (the very idea of prophets, for example, is a negative to you if i'm understanding correctly). What is your evidence for that? Is tribalism it? (Just trying to clarify if I've understood the scope of your argument against tribalism correctly). I actually do believe that the very idea of prophetic authority is a negative, but that is a little outside the scope of what I imagined in this thread. But I admit that this is something I've been thinking. And yes I believe tribalism is an influencing factor, but there are others. I haven't studied this idea enough to make a cohesive argument around it though at this point. 1
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2017 Author Posted November 28, 2017 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: It's called dishing it out and not being able to take what is imagined to be dished out in return. Can you stop with the insults?
Recommended Posts