'Lazy learner'

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not talking about random internet memes  that say things like "Everything you see on the internet is true"- Abraham Lincoln.

But that's just it.  We are talking about a random internet meme because none of the quotes on there are attributed or cited.  We can't prove that they were ever said.

Quote

We're talking about quotes from past and current prophets saying things that are completely reasonable and familiar to everyone in the church. If any of those quotes are incorrect I'd be interested in knowing that but those are all things I've seen, read and heard my entire life so why should I expect they are incorrect? Could I possibly be wrong? Sure. I'm open to that. But I'm not going to spend time searching to disprove quotes that seem perfectly reasonable and familiar. If we did that with everything we saw, read, heard etc. we would never accomplish anything. Now if I see something that contradicts what I think is true, I will likely research that to see what is correct. 

Are we?  First, I don't personally remember any prophet but Nelson talking about the length of the restoration.  I'm not saying that the other prophets didn't--and I agree it's a reasonable thing for them to have said--but I don't have any memory of it being a big topic before Nelson.

I tried to look them up and could not find them anywhere.  Since you are the one who says they are familiar to you, maybe you can find them.

And if you don't want to spend time researching something that's fine.  But why are you trying to imply that everyone else should be spending time researching it when you don't want to?  Seems.....weird.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Sorry.  You are wrong and your comment that I bolded simply cannot be taken seriously. And yes speaking out publicly against the church leaders is a quick path out.  We are witnessing this frequently in real time. You might want to ponder one of your temple covenants in regards to the authoritarian nature of the church and the obedience to church leaders that is expected.

That is still not authoritarianism and it is insulting to the suffering and privations endured by those who live in authoritarian regimes to say so.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is still not authoritarianism and it is insulting to the suffering and privations endured by those who live in authoritarian regimes to say so.

You're using the term in a narrow way to refer only to governments.  The term is often used in management style discussions as well (for example: https://www.workzone.com/blog/management-styles/ ).  When I have used relative to the Church, I have used it in reference to the latter, not the former.  I suspect Teancum is doing the same.

Edited June 17, 2021 by ttribe

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You're using the term in a narrow way to refer only to governments.  The term is often used in management style discussions as well (for example: https://www.workzone.com/blog/management-styles/ ).  When I have used relative to the Church, I have used in reference to the latter, not the former.  I suspect Teancum is doing the same.

Deliberately choosing the emotional impact of a loaded term and than insisting that you don’t actually mean that seems counterproductive.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Deliberately choosing the emotional impact of a loaded term and than insisting that you don’t actually mean that seems counterproductive.

Uhhhh, I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but I was just trying to bridge the gap in an apparent misunderstanding in word choice.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

But that's just it.  We are talking about a random internet meme because none of the quotes on there are attributed or cited.  We can't prove that they were ever said.

Are we?  First, I don't personally remember any prophet but Nelson talking about the length of the restoration.  I'm not saying that the other prophets didn't--and I agree it's a reasonable thing for them to have said--but I don't have any memory of it being a big topic before Nelson.

I tried to look them up and could not find them anywhere.  Since you are the one who says they are familiar to you, maybe you can find them.

And if you don't want to spend time researching something that's fine.  But why are you trying to imply that everyone else should be spending time researching it when you don't want to?  Seems.....weird.

 

Really?

If you don't like the implications of the quotes as attributed (they are attributed, but not cited) and want to show that they are inaccurate or don't properly reflect the views of the person, it makes perfect sense for you to show that they are inaccurate.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really?

If you don't like the implications of the quotes as attributed (they are attributed, but not cited) and want to show that they are inaccurate or don't properly reflect the views of the person, it makes perfect sense for you to show that they are inaccurate.

I've said repeatedly that I'm fine with the implications.  You were the one who wanted people to look up the context to prove your interpretation was right.  

Edited June 17, 2021 by bluebell

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Deliberately choosing the emotional impact of a loaded term and than insisting that you don’t actually mean that seems counterproductive.

Authoritarian can apply aptly to a high demand religion and it does to the LDS Church.

[Fair Dinkum]

On 4/5/2021 at 7:59 PM, bluebell said:

“Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith."

Many of those I know who have left the church have done so only after a long and arduous study of gospel truth claims.  There was nothing lazy in their approach to gaining a greater understanding of the church.  In my own situation, I have read numerous volumes of books in history ( both church and non), biology, evolution biology, archaeology, Egyptology, (including Robert's book), psychology, Philosophy, Theology and linguistics. (I'm sure I'm leaving something out)  but there was nothing lazy about it.  So to be told that I am lazy because I may have come to different conclusions than President Nelson is somewhat disappointing.

[jkwilliams]

42 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Many of those I know who have left the church have done so only after a long and arduous study of gospel truth claims.  There was nothing lazy in their approach to gaining a greater understanding of the church.  In my own situation, I have read numerous volumes of books in history ( both church and non), biology, evolution biology, archaeology, Egyptology, (including Robert's book), psychology, Philosophy, Theology and linguistics. (I'm sure I'm leaving something out)  but there was nothing lazy about it.  So to be told that I am lazy because I may have come to different conclusions than President Nelson is somewhat disappointing.

So, what you’re saying is that we were looking very hard to find an excuse to leave, right? 😂

[cinepro]

57 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Many of those I know who have left the church have done so only after a long and arduous study of gospel truth claims.  There was nothing lazy in their approach to gaining a greater understanding of the church.  In my own situation, I have read numerous volumes of books in history ( both church and non), biology, evolution biology, archaeology, Egyptology, (including Robert's book), psychology, Philosophy, Theology and linguistics. (I'm sure I'm leaving something out)  but there was nothing lazy about it.  So to be told that I am lazy because I may have come to different conclusions than President Nelson is somewhat disappointing.

Since Nelson didn't say that everyone who leaves the Church is a "lazy learner", the existence of energetic-learners such as yourself does not falsify his statement.

But since you misread his statement and assumed it applied to you (or all exMos), which is something a lazy-learner would do, who knows?

Edited June 17, 2021 by cinepro

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Many of those I know who have left the church have done so only after a long and arduous study of gospel truth claims.  There was nothing lazy in their approach to gaining a greater understanding of the church.  In my own situation, I have read numerous volumes of books in history ( both church and non), biology, evolution biology, archaeology, Egyptology, (including Robert's book), psychology, Philosophy, Theology and linguistics. (I'm sure I'm leaving something out)  but there was nothing lazy about it.  So to be told that I am lazy because I may have come to different conclusions than President Nelson is somewhat disappointing.

If you weren't lazy about it then why do you assume that Pres. Nelson was talking about you?  

[Fair Dinkum]

32 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Since Nelson didn't say that everyone who leaves the Church is a "lazy learner",

I never suggested he did.

Quote

the existence of energetic-learners such as yourself does not falsify his statement.

Again I agree with you

Quote

But since you misread his statement and assumed it applied to you, which is something a lazy-learner would do, who knows?

Quote

“Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith."

Ouch.  His premises pre-supposes that to increase ones faith it takes work. But this is a flawed premise.  It is similar to Moroni's Promise where if one arrives at a different conclusion than the one promised, the fault falls on the tester and not the test the tester wasn't sincere enough, didn't pray hard enough, didn't do it the way that would lead to confirmation of the truth. Pres. Nelson pre-supposes that when one works hard but still doesn't achieve an increase in faith one must be a lazy learners cuz only the lazy learners struggle to muster even a particle of faith.

Its a classic double bind.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you weren't lazy about it then why do you assume that Pres. Nelson was talking about you?  

see my response to Cinipro

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Since Nelson didn't say that everyone who leaves the Church is a "lazy learner", the existence of energetic-learners such as yourself does not falsify his statement.

But since you misread his statement and assumed it applied to you (or all exMos), which is something a lazy-learner would do, who knows?

This is a fair critique, but I wonder. If you surveyed faithful “chapel” Latter-day Saints about why people struggle with faith I wonder what answers you would get. I wonder how often, “sin”, “lazy”, “offended”, or other similar words are brought up compared to say a recognition that things are complicated. 
 

I wonder too about the people that leave for intellectual reasons, how many of them have to deal with neighbors friends and family that judge with labels like “lazy”. 
 

So while technically you are correct, I don’t think the language President Nelson choose was on accident, and I think the judgement that some feel is a direct result of church leaders omitting a really valid reason that many leave over. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Authoritarian can apply aptly to a high demand religion and it does to the LDS Church.

I disagree and making it about what the religion expects takes it even further from fitting any definition of the word "authoritarian".

Imagine a religion run by popular democracy where all tenets are voted on. If they decided to make it a high demand religion would it be authoritarian?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I never suggested he did.

Again I agree with you

Ouch.  His premises pre-supposes that to increase ones faith it takes work. But this is a flawed premise.  It is similar to Moroni's Promise where if one arrives at a different conclusion than the one promised, the fault falls on the tester and not the test the tester wasn't sincere enough, didn't pray hard enough, didn't do it the way that would lead to confirmation of the truth. Pres. Nelson pre-supposes that when one works hard but still doesn't achieve an increase in faith one must be a lazy learners cuz only the lazy learners struggle to muster even a particle of faith.

Its a classic double bind.

How do you know Pres. Nelson is pre supposing that?  Did he say that somewhere?

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a fair critique, but I wonder. If you surveyed faithful “chapel” Latter-day Saints about why people struggle with faith I wonder what answers you would get. I wonder how often, “sin”, “lazy”, “offended”, or other similar words are brought up compared to say a recognition that things are complicated. 
 

I wonder too about the people that leave for intellectual reasons, how many of them have to deal with neighbors friends and family that judge with labels like “lazy”. 
 

So while technically you are correct, I don’t think the language President Nelson choose was on accident, and I think the judgement that some feel is a direct result of church leaders omitting a really valid reason that many leave over. 

If we surveyed ex-Mormons and asked them why people continue to believe and stay active, how many would give unflattering and judgmental reasons?

How many members have to deal with family and friends who have left thinking something is wrong with them or that they are just “sheeple” for staying “LD$“?

Would that number mean anything about ex-Mormons in general?

If judgmental jerks exist in the ex-member community without being able to blame it on “leaders”, why can’t they exist in the Latter-day Saint community for similar reasons?

Some people are just turds all in their own, regardless of their affiliation.

 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If we surveyed ex-Mormons and asked them why people continue to believe and stay active, how many would give unflattering and judgmental reasons?

How many members have to deal with family and friends who have left thinking something is wrong with them or that they are just “sheeple” for staying “LD$“?

Would that number mean anything about ex-Mormons in general?

If judgmental jerks exist in the ex-member community without being able to blame it on “leaders”, why can’t they exist in the Latter-day Saint community for similar reasons?

Some people are just turds all in their own, regardless of their affiliation.

 

Keep being you! I have the best memories of raising my kids in the church.

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If we surveyed ex-Mormons and asked them why people continue to believe and stay active, how many would give unflattering and judgmental reasons?

How many members have to deal with family and friends who have left thinking something is wrong with them or that they are just “sheeple” for staying “LD$“?

Would that number mean anything about ex-Mormons in general?

If judgmental jerks exist in the ex-member community without being able to blame it on “leaders”, why can’t they exist in the Latter-day Saint community for similar reasons?

Some people are just turds all in their own, regardless of their affiliation.

Agreed. Most exmos I know pretty much don't care what the church does. I don't know anyone who thinks their loved ones are deluded "sheeple." Sure, some people handle their exit badly (I did), just as some members are pretty horrible to us apostates. But you can't paint with a broad brush in either case.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Keep being you! I have the best memories of raising my kids in the church.

As I've learned about some of the things my kids experienced in the church, I have very mixed feelings about having raised them in the church. 

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If we surveyed ex-Mormons and asked them why people continue to believe and stay active, how many would give unflattering and judgmental reasons?

How many members have to deal with family and friends who have left thinking something is wrong with them or that they are just “sheeple” for staying “LD$“?

Would that number mean anything about ex-Mormons in general?

If judgmental jerks exist in the ex-member community without being able to blame it on “leaders”, why can’t they exist in the Latter-day Saint community for similar reasons?

Some people are just turds all in their own, regardless of their affiliation.

 

Talk to me when you've experienced being ignored and actively avoided in public places by people you've known for 15 years.  That's my experience and I'm hardly alone.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Talk to me when you've experienced being ignored and actively avoided in public places by people you've known for 15 years.  That's my experience and I'm hardly alone.

I've had that happen, too, but you can't say everyone is like that, thankfully. I have a good friend who left when he was in a bishopric. He has gone out of his way not to share his reasons for leaving or "proselytize" anyone out of the church. He lost his job (the partners in his firm were LDS and didn't feel "comfortable" with him there anymore), rumors started going around that he had started a "polyamorous sex cult," and he was the subject of the stake president's address in stake priesthood meeting warning people to stay away from him. So, yeah, people can suck. Not all, though.

Edited June 18, 2021 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I've had that happen, too, but you can't say everyone is like that, thankfully. I have a good friend who left when he was in a bishopric. He has gone out of his way not to share his reasons for leaving or "proselytize" anyone out of the church. He lost his job (the partners in his firm were LDS and didn't feel "comfortable" with him there anymore), rumors started going around that he had started a "polyamorous sex cult," and he was the subject of the stake president's address in stake priesthood meeting warning people to stay away from him. So, yeah, people can suck. Not all, though.

Oh, I don't use it as a blanket statement.  My point in referencing this experience is that it is a very different world to be actively shunned than it is for someone to call you a "sheep."  The psychological impact of being actively isolated is far more likely to engender anger than is the mild name-calling.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Oh, I don't use it as a blanket statement.  My point in referencing this experience is that it is a very different world to be actively shunned than it is for someone to call you a "sheep."  The psychological impact of being actively isolated is far more likely to engender anger than is the mild name-calling.

Indeed. I've been shunned by some people, too. Not fun.