A direct attack on StayLDS by the apologists.

[Anonymous]

Hi M&G

I agree with your comments 100%

mercyngrace wrote:

Cwald,

MDDB and MD are flip sides of the same coin… They are both toxic environments that will draw you into donning one or another of their uniforms and lobbing verbal grenades at their board war enemies. I’ve largely stopped posting at either site for this reason. It’s virtually impossible to contribute meaningfully while keeping yourself above the fray. And the war isn’t one that either side wants to win. Too many of the combatants simply relish the very, dirty fight. And many, on both sides, will play nice publicly but scheme and snipe though private channels. (I’m not free of guilt here – I’ve sniped, to be sure, from time to time).

I’m just saying, if you’re really interested in moving forward in your spiritual life (in whatever direction), neither of these boards are helpful. They are stagnant pools of water.

Yes.

I lurk at both boards. Occasionally post at MDB, especially when I get put in the straight jacket over here for being to angry…but I would agree with your assessment. Negative energy…never does anyone any good.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

By the way, I take no offense at him calling you my buddies…. you are.

Thanks for being a voice of reconciliation DB. I admire you for the way that you go about your Father’s business.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, but I don’t see why it is so hard.

Why is it so difficult to see that one is free to disagree and does not have to stand by if they feel someone has crossed the line, but do so in a way that prevents animosity and keeps an open dialogue.

It almost like they think I stand idly by not saying anything when I disagree with you….. but that’s just it I disagree constantly with many of you here and yet somehow I feel like we can still be friends…… why is that so hard?

[Anonymous]

Both people need to want to be friends and not feel attacked / threatened by or afraid of different views – and, generally, not in that order.

Lots of people have never seen loving acceptance of opposing views modeled properly – and that’s true of all sides of any issue, unfortunately. When someone who is willing to consider an opinion and change his mind is labeled a “flip-flopper” – as if being open to changing an opinion is a bad thing, entrenchment and attack becomes the norm. When convincing is valued over learning . . . When generalization supplants precision . . .

Again, that happens even here and not just on the apologetic boards. When we aren’t careful, we can end up throwing around stereotypes and labels just as easily as “they” do. When we are in a bad mood, we can insult with the best of them.

That is important to recognize – both generally and in the moment. For example, when we use “the apologists” as a broad term of all-inclusive derision and dismissal, is it really any different than Midgely using broad terms of derision and dismissal toward us?

I think that is worth considering – deeply and individually.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

I love that last point you made. No one is immune from broad brushing. Some people generalize as a tactic for marginalizing an ideological opponent, where others slip into generalizations incidentally by basing judgments on their own limited experiences. I’m a lot quicker to forgive when the latter is the case.

There are some apologists with whom I would LOVE to break bread and discuss issues. I can unequivocally say the same about several critics of the church with whom I disagree on a regular basis. What I can’t stomach is the class of either whose stock in trade is division, disharmony, and contention. Sadly, the internet brings that kind of behavior out in far too many of us (humans, not Mormons).

[Anonymous]

agreed, other then I am not speaking of apologists but rather 3 specific individuals who don’t play nice. And yes i can be a pain in the butt too.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

agreed, other then I am not speaking of apologists but rather 3 specific individuals who don’t play nice. And yes i can be a pain in the butt too.

They banned Selek1 the same week they banned me. Good for them. Until they ban Wade England, Will Shcryver and Pahoran, and stop giving them free reign to say anything they want in their echochamber…the owners and mods at MDDB have to own it. When you have a heavily moderated board, and they ban folks for the smallest violation of rules and protocol, and then allow these extreme fundamentalists, wolves in sheep clothing, to speak “for the church,” without any kind of moderation or consequence, they are responsible for that message and the content they promote on the board.

It would be different if they allowed folks who disagree with them to discuss the issue…but that does not happen. Instead they ban them.

Incidentally…this is my complaint about the LDS church as well. No accountability. The institution will never take responsibility for the mistakes it has made/makes…and has created a culture where peaceful dissent is not tolerated…and even condemned as apostasy.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

…and has created a culture where peaceful dissent is not tolerated…and even condemned as apostasy.

WHAT!!? Cwald you have obviously never heard of the law of common consent! We all have a voice in EVERY decision! 😈

Sorry, couldn’t help my self. I’ll go back to my corner now.

[Anonymous]

eman wrote:

cwald wrote:

…and has created a culture where peaceful dissent is not tolerated…and even condemned as apostasy.

WHAT!!? Cwald you have obviously never heard of the law of common consent! We all have a voice in EVERY decision! 😈

Sorry, couldn’t help my self. I’ll go back to my corner now.

And stay in there.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Louis Midgley said:

Quote:

DBMormon, in a rather kindly response, among other things explains that while “bouncing around the boards,” which is something I do not do, he “noticed many LDS who are struggling but faithful [who] were offended by this piece” that I wrote entitled “Defending the King and His King.” He is, he indicates, also aware of “many who detest the church” who did not like my essay, but he paid no attention to them. Instead, he focused on those “who have found a faithful ‘middle way’ [who] who saw the article as offensive.”

DB’s remarks interests me. Why? I am only aware of comments on two threads this board, and some helpful comments on the Interpreter website, where anyone has commented on my essay. The fact is that authors often enjoy and benefit from comments and carefully set out criticisms.. At least I am interested in how various audiences react to what I write. Hence I would very much appreciate knowing where I can have a look at these many comments. The reason for taking a careful look at criticisms is that one can something discover how better to address certain stock issues that are brought up, and so forth. If DBMormon would like to bring these to my attention by email, I can be reached at l.midgley@comcast.net. Or by phone. I think I am still in the phone book.

Would someone please post on MDDB perhaps about this website and New Order Mormon. Wake up Midgley and get a clue.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59514-midgleys-defending-the-king-and-his-kingdom/page__st__140” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59514-midgleys-defending-the-king-and-his-kingdom/page__st__140

[Anonymous]

Never mind. I will email him myself.

[Anonymous]

And just in case Mr. Midgley actually DOES read this thread. Here is my message to Daniel Peterson, and now to Midgley himself.

Quote:

Mr. Peterson (and now Mr. Midgley)…if you are being sincere, and truly welcome and want NOMs and middle way Mormons worshipping with you at church on Sundays, than prove it. Lets see an article in the MI where you walk the walk….none of this “wolves in sheep clothing” and apostates talk just because they are “unorthodox.” None of this criticism about how folks don’t have a right to call themselves Mormon if they don’t believe exactly like a traditional Mormon and in literal this and that… etc etc.

I want to see that article.

Please clarify your position so there will be no more of these “misunderstandings.”

Put up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

Yep…and he follows that post up with this one.

Quote:

In glancing through the comments on this thread again today, I must indicate that I don’t believe that anyone is going to turn away from their covenants with God because of what I wrote. I would be pleased, however, if some were to move a bit beyond seeing the Church, which is or should be a community of faithful Saints, and not a social club one outgrows when it does not meet their own needs, would think seriously about what it means to be a Saint in God’s Kingdom. Put another way, I write with the hope that some may even turn to or return to God because they see more clearly the alternatives. With the usual stereotypes about dreaded apologists cluttering the minds of those who complain about my tone, I am, however, not at all sure how to address the question of the tone of what I write, since that seems to me to be primarily within the control of the way one reads something. There have even been some guarded admissions that one or two have perhaps read into my essay things clearly not there merely because they were impacted by stereotyped images of dreaded apologists.

There is exactly nothing I can do to communicate with those in the “wine and cheese” world of the elite snobbish rejection of divine things. I have known those who were into that world who the emptiness of such a world and hence both turned to or returned to God. I am always hoping to leave open and recommend his way (and not some vague middle way between RfM and Dan Peterson).

Exactly. Are “middle way” mormons welcome or not. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

[Anonymous]

cwald, a big part of me hopes he doesn’t come here to comment. I don’t mind him reading the threads seeking sincere understanding, but I don’t want this site used to argue extremes. In other words, I don’t want this site to become that site in that regard – and I don’t want the impression of singular moderation if he comes here and starts calling everyone here to repentance or disparaging the way people see things differently. If that happens, he will be moderated, and I don’t want that to solidify his pre-existing perceptions.

If he can come here and be respectful and truly seek understanding, he is welcome with open arms, even if he continues to disagree; if not, I would rather he not comment here at all.

[Anonymous]

Agreed.

I don’t care if he participates or not. But I do want him to know that Bill is correct…his article and the position that the MI is taking will do more harm than good…and they are pushing people out of the church and making many folks feel unwelcome to worship and fellowship with family. He seems oblivious to the problem.

[Author]

Posts