- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yes, that is part of our mission and need to be emphasized regularly – but it’s a razor thin line and needs to be coupled with not reading offense into statements unnecessarily – reading as charitably as possible, especially when the initial response is emotional. I am aware that both Wayfarer and Shawn have been asked to bow out of this public conversation. In wording this post I have tried to evaluate and summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each of your posts as I observed them. My observations are merely my own. Orson wrote:Shawn does make a very good general point about the proper way to express our views on this site. None of us are perfect but it is in our mission to communicate in a way that does not demean another point of view.
I agree. I like Wayfarer’s thoughts and I find many of them compelling. OTOH I wonder if I would be as accepting if someone were preaching a literalist viewpoint using aggressively certain language. (I’m not going to go through all of Way’s posts on this thread to find examples of word use. I am assuming that he used phrases similar to “We must”, “We need”, “It is impossible”, and “It is wrong.” If He did not use wording like this then I apologize for putting words into your mouth.)
My own mother once told me that I can be intimidating because of the strength of my conviction. For me, my worldview makes so much logical sense and the pieces fit together so nicely that others should agree with me if only I can explain it to them sufficiently. Ironically, my mom told me this prior to my faith crisis. I believe it is part of my personality to have strong convictions in whatever my belief happens to be.
I was recently in an LDS Strengthening the Family Class and the question was asked how to handle a situation where a spouse or child is challenging a belief that you know is correct because it is “gospel truth.” The answer that I really appreciated was to phrase your answers to hold out for the possibility that you may be wrong. It is more respectful and helpful to say something to the effect that, “I can see where one may come to that conclusion, I see it differently and my perspective is important to me.” rather than “The prophet said x,y,z. You need to repent and come to the same conclusion.”
In my daily dialogue with my family I have tried to supplant, “You need to” with “I need you to” because of what I learned in this class.
Old-Timer wrote:Yes, that is part of our mission and need to be emphasized regularly – but it’s a razor thin line and needs to be coupled with not reading offense into statements unnecessarily – reading as charitably as possible, especially when the initial response is emotional.
I agree. Shawn’s initial reaction did seem to come out of right field and had the feel of an emotional attack. This initial response set a hard tone for coming to a better understanding of each other.
To be fair to Wayfarer, DB did ask him to explain how he could not believe in some tenets of Mormonism yet still believe in others. We may give extra latitude to an individual that is explicitly asked to explain their belief system.
under normal circumstances, i would agree that my statements were quite insistent…but context here is important. the question is how any can hold the church to be true in any meaningful sense if one accepts that the founding stories are fraught with problems and th book of mormon nonhistorical. the answer is that one must, and i mean must, set aside the internally contradictory god definition and the way most people think revelation works, that is literal dictation. these are paradigms that don’t work for the non-literalist, and there ain’t no way to lay that out diplomatically. When a true believer reads what i write, they have a different paradigm in mind, in which case, yes, it is likely they will be offended. But if you are happy with literal faith, the LAST thing i want to do is convert you. Please, be happy. don’t read what i write: it absolutely is not for you.
I have come to a place where I have a knowledge that god exists for me: and that God is the God within — not me, and certainly not my ego, but the holy ghost or divine nature that exists within me. without this god, i would be nothing. as well, when i am in harmony with this god, then the me becomes god in a very scriptural sense. I have spent many, many years studying cognition, and professionally i focus on the epistemology of identity– how we know the identity of people as they desire to interact with national security, across borders and architect of the national ID system of India. So, professionally, how we make claims, how we determine our ontology, and how we know things… is what i do. by understanding the idea that the holy ghost is indeed a god within, and that this god works through the amazing processes of the mind, gives me tangible hope that Joseph Smith was on an amazing trajectory in defining god in human terms.
this does not exclude a god out there. shawn projected that my definitions as incompatible with mormonism. it is not. I have faith, but no knowledge, that there is a god out there. there is a big difference. I hold in faith that the speculations of mormonism are somehow meaningful, but they are not fact-based, but spiritually, subjectively determined.
while i understand how someone can be offended when I make a declarative, definitive statement, it would be inauthentic of me to couch what i truly know as being opinion or belief. i have no issue when a believer bears solemn testimony, they can and should. why then should everything be couched in indeterminate language?
Exactly, wayfarer – and, as was said, the key in this case was that you were asked specifically how you construct your view within a very narrowly defined arena. With those parameters, the edge disappears from declarative statements. The only different modifier that could have worked, imo, would have been something like “I had to” instead of “someone must” – but I understood that to be the core message, so it didn’t bother me. For someone who wouldn’t read that underlying foundation and would be prone to misunderstanding( and who couldn’t discuss concerns face-to-face, read facial expressions and body language, gain immediate feedback, etc.), there would be more of an edge.
That is the inherent danger and tension of on-line communication – the ease with which misunderstanding can occur, compared with eye-to-eye dialogue.
Since the discussion has continued, I would like to add that I think context is irrelevant when something is said a certain way. When a set of beliefs is referred to as “false,” what different does it make to say that it is “within a very narrowly defined arena?” A comment intended for a specific audience can be offensive to someone outside of that audience. It’s like overhearing someone using racial epithets. The person hearing them is not the intended audience and the scope could be quite limited, but it is still offensive. This would not bother me: “We must eventually abandon the concept of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, and unchanging god.”
It was acknowledged that those qualities are part of what was referred to as “the false god of the creeds.” CONTEXT IS IRRELEVANT HERE. No matter who the intended audience was or how limited the scope, the issue is that the God I believe in was called “the false god of the creeds.” If that is acceptable here, then this site is no longer a safe place to be.
In the context in which it was said, that statement is acceptable here. If that is unacceptable to you, Shawn, I hope, sincerely, you can find another forum that will fit your needs better – perhaps FAIR Mormon Outreach. Old-Timer wrote:In the context in which it was said, that statement is acceptable here. If that is unacceptable to you, Shawn, I hope, sincerely, you can find another forum that will fit your needs better – perhaps FAIR Mormon Outreach.
amen to that. shawn never responded when i took the conversation to PM per your request.shawn: i am sorry you are offended, but i have no control over your incorrect perception of my words if you don’t respond to my words as written.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.