- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t think he setting up shop here. I think Tom Haws summoned him. I’ve been going back and forth with John Hamer in a couple private messages, just because I am interested in him, and only knew him indirectly up until now. He’s cool. He has interesting ideas. He is very mormon, but he is definately NOT “LDS.” I don’t get the impression he is staying around. I think he will fade out. If not, I don’t think he would be offended at all if we/I asked him to not be a presence here. He gets it.
Thanks. Like I said, I really like John.
I thought JOhn’s response on the laundry list of Mormon stuff was interesting. I can also see why he can’t support LDS, given that he’s a gay man in a long-term committed relationship. And as to BY being a usurper, it’s certainly a plausible explanation. John is like Nick Literski in one important way – other than being gay: they both favor “Mormonism” over “LDS-ism”. That’s pretty funny in some ways, since there is no proof that homosexuality would have been accepted in the early Church, but it gives both of them some interesting perspectives that I enjoy reading – just not as much here. John H. doesn’t belong here. I have really enjoyed our PMs back and forth. I find him scary, to be honest. Scary because he is so knowledgable AND because his positions have a lot of rational validity. Our discussions plagued my mind and heart all weekend, and John probably doesn’t even know the impact. I love it! 
His presence is dangerous for the mission of this site.
I realized early in college that relying primarily on my intellect was a dangerous proposition – since there are plenty of people who are a lot smarter than I am. I understand “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine” pretty well from a practical standpoint. I also noticed, however, that many of those people weren’t joyful people. Many were cynical; many were satisfied; many were contented; many were arrogant; many were judgmental; many were deeply confused and had no personal beliefs. A few really were joyful, but those were the ones who tended not to focus primarily on their own intellects. That was an interesting and foundational realization for me. John is a cool guy, and he has found what works well for him. He also is highly intelligent, so he is able to articulate his own decisions rationally and coherently and compellingly. He can be a great leader, and that is both bad and good. If he put his heart into it, he could could be a charismatic of the highest order – but I’m not certain that would be good for him or for those who would follow. With a real “revelatory calling”, I could see him being something close to a Joseph Smith; I also could see him being a fully realized Sydney Rigdon. That’s the natural tension (and scariness) of genius.
I agree with your assessment Ray. The motivation for my comments above were out of respect for John Hamer. Anyone that can “disturb” me at this point in my journey, I find them fascinating. He’s definately someone that I would dig having some long, in-person talks with. He seems pretty cool.
Guess I missed the excitement, I’m just low on time these days. Ray, I had a thought – and one of your comments here added to it. I heard you say something like ‘people don’t believe what they see – they see what they believe.’ I love that, it’s fascinating and so often true. Your talk above of peronalities that lean on their intellect reminded me of what I’ve read of MBTI studies. Some people do trust their logic more than emotional/spiritual experiences (I happen to be one of them if you hadn’t noticed), I wonder if these personalities could be more likely to “believe what they see” by remaining more detached? I know scientists often get emotionally invested in particular theories, so they too become more likely to “see what they (already) believe”, but I wonder if a big part of it could be related to this logical vs. emotional leaning of the fundamental personality.
Sorry to derail.
Quote:I also could see him being a fully realized Sydney Rigdon.
Spot on! We should keep a close watch on Hamer.
On the MBTI stuff, regardless of one’s type, the truism “you’ll see what you believe” works, IMO. Either way, you’ll see what you expect to see (confirmation bias). Feelers make decisions based on subjective values and feelings; thinkers make decisions based on objective principles and logic. But in reality, both are doing this based on their life experiences and perceptions. Feelers trust and are more intimately familiar with their subjective values, whereas thinkers trust and are more familiar with deduction based on principles and pros and cons. It’s just the tools people choose, but in reality, both thinkers and feelers might mis-judge based on their assessments. Good judgment comes from experience which comes from bad judgment.
In the church, a feeler’s Fowler’s journey might look like this:
Stage 3 – your good feelings have led you to believe in the church
Stage 4 – you have mixed feelings based on a variety of experiences that has caused disillusionment
Stage 5 – you reconcile by choosing what doesn’t violate your subjective values and letting go of what does
A thinker’s Fowler’s journey might look like this:
Stage 3 – you have some sort of evidence or proof (based on your own criteria) that causes you to believe in the church; it could be a conversion experience or some other type of proof
Stage 4 – you have evidence that contradicts your original evidence or proof
Stage 5 – you reconcile the complexity into something that works for you logically; the balance comes out one way or the other in terms of belief
That’s just one way to look at MBTI and Fowler anyway.
Absolutely, Orson. I think one of the biggest reasons why many members feel betrayed by the Church is that they are either analytical by nature or emotional by nature – and they come to see the Church as the opposite.
Think about that a bit:
Someone who has developed a black and white view of Mormon history and finds that shattered by exposure to opposing and compelling accounts often reacts emotionally to that result – since black and white views tend to be more emotional than analytical. Such a person sees the Church as having been conniving and disingenuous – both of which, in that person’s mind, are “analytical” attributes. So, an emotional person criticizes the Church for being analytical, if you will.
Turn to someone who has a more nuanced, gray view. That is generally a result of being more analytical than emotional, and they often see the Church as more subjective and emotional. This manifests itself in charges of “hiding” truth and “covering up” negative things and even “lying” about stuff – all of which, in that person’s mind, are “emotional” attributes (being unable to analyze and see “objective” truth). [That’s what happens all the time over on Mormon Matters, and it can be frustrating to see how blind most people are to that bias. BiV/Cheryl and I is a great example of this; I drive her nuts, largely because I am analytical and she is emotional – so she sees my analysis of her posts and comments as rejection.]
The fascinating thing is that each person can reach the same general conclusion, but each person attributes the motivation behind it to a different genesis – whatever is the opposite of their own personality. It’s a natural way to justify rejection, by classifying others as different than one’s self.
I might want to post that as a separate thread. What do you all think?
One more point: I am seen very differently on some blogs than on others, even though I take the same basic position in almost all of what I write around the Bloggernacle – and I confuse people all the time on nearly all the blogs I frequent. That fundamentally is because I test out dead solid middle of the road on every personality test I’ve ever taken. That means I often befuddle and bemuse those who think I’m conservative when I express moderate or even liberal ideas, while I do the same thing to those who think I’m liberal when I sound conservative. I also annoy those who are emotional when I am analytical, while I make analytical people pull out their hair when I am emotional (like my decision to find a way intellectually to justify what brings me joy). Over on MM, I tie Doug G. up in knots – simply because he can’t pin me down as either a good guy or a bad guy – and sometimes I drive the women over on FMH up a wall – simply because they also can’t pigeonhole me into a nice little box.
In a way, it can be lonely, since it means lots of people jump to incorrect conclusions about what I believe and what my comments mean – so I constantly have to say, “Re-read what I actually wrote. I didn’t say that.” It also can be tiresome to be told that I’m being inconsistent, simply because I refuse to gravitate to one extreme or the other. Overall, however, I don’t mind – since it works for me, and I try not to force anyone else to see it my way. Sharing my perspective is enough.
Quote:I think one of the biggest reasons why many members feel betrayed by the Church is that they are either analytical by nature or emotional by nature – and they come to see the Church as the opposite.
This would be a great post for here and also MM.
Excellent comments guys, as always. Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.