DiscussMormonism.com

So as not to further derail Liz' topic on doctrinal evidence for plural marriage, I have moved the conversation Truth Dancer and I are having here.

Her last post in that thread is copied here, and I am responding. Please join in this discussion with us.

truth dancer wrote:

I am hardly unique.

I have never encountered an apologists who uses your tactics and techniques to such extreme lengths.

What tactics and techniques? I express my opinion about what I believe, about what the Church teaches, about the interpretation of the "facts" of history. I tell people if I think they have something wrong about LDS doctrine, beliefs, history, etc. On a message board! And what extreme length? You make it sound like I am standing outside the Southern Baptist Worldwide Conference with a sign telling them they are all going to hell. Or making a deceptive DVD, and running around the neighborhood hanging it in a little baggie on doorknobs, ringing the bell and then jumping into the bushes to hide so I don't have to talk to a real person.

truth dancer wrote:

I've trained under expert apologists.

I've never heard about an apologists training program. Could you elaborate?

We don't talk about it. It is a rigorous training program sponsored by our Danite Retribution Committee. Boy, do I ever need a whole line of ROFL smilies.

Massive amounts time spent in reading. Observing apologist reponses. That kind of training.

It is not an apologists job to re-convert anyone who has "left" the Church.

truth dancer wrote:[
I do not think anyone has suggested it is. Apologists for all religions share a similar purpose. Problem is they all think they are right with the one true God at the helm. :-)

No, the problem isn't that they all think they are right. The problem is that most of them are wrong. That's the test. We come down here to show that we can pick out the right one.

truth dancer wrote:

The Spirit converts. And since there is opposition in all things, it is the "other" influence which de-converts.

Who converts someone to Scientology? Islam? JW? Catholicism? Paganism? Who de-converts someone from Scientology? Islam? JW? Catholicism? Paganism?

You seem to suggest that Satan "de-converts" people from the LDS church but it is the HG that de-converts people from every other religion? Conversely, it is the HG who converts people to the LDS church but Satan who converts people to other faiths?

The Spirit only converts to the truth. Many religions have pieces of the truth, some even have a lot of pieces of the truth. Many people are doing what they should be doing at this time in their lives (including the post-mortal period) who are not members of the LDS Church as they listen to the Spirit and conform their lives to what He tells them.

It is also true that many people belong to churches for reasons which have nothing to do with the truths of the Gospel. I think this also applies to some people who are presently LDS.

I didn't say, nor do I believe that Satan "converts" people to other churches or religions. Satan has no ability to give a person the same sort of confirming experience to falsehood that the Spirit can for truth. People join other churches than the LDS Church for many reasons. Some of those reasons are they misinterpret an experience where the Spirit has testified to them of a truth, as meaning they should join some other church.

truth dancer wrote:

We often hear of people who are offended by bishops, other leaders, members, etc. and that causes them to leave the Church.

I have never heard of this with the exception of unsourced accusations from LDS leaders.

Didn't you mean that when you said the apologists, me in particular, may be instrumental in de-convering individuals?

truth dancer wrote:

But it is never a person who causes an individual to leave.

I totally agree. It is never a person, it is knowledge, information, growth, expansion, development, ideas, awareness etc. etc. etc. I'm NOT suggesting that new knowledge is true, I'm saying that it seems the reason for disbelief from every religion is new awareness, information, or knowledge, true or not.

Or merely a loss of the Spirit, a loss of testimony that just dwindles away, a choice which makes continued activity in Church problematical, a choice when presented with two contrary views to accept the contrary view over the position of the Church.

truth dancer wrote:

The faithful member stays faithful no matter what.

This is nonsense. Faithful members of all religions move on, "de-convert" release belief, or change beliefs.

By definition, as they de-convert, release belief, they are no longer faithful to that religion. Once faithful does not matter in the long run. Enduring to the end is a requirement.

truth dancer wrote:Now, if you mean True Believers, in the Eric Hoffer sense of the term, then yes, we can all agree that they will never leave their religions regardless of what faith tradition they embrace.

Faithful members of the Church who endure to the end are not "True Believers" in the Hoffer sense.

truth dancer wrote:

Those who have the Spirit with them can discern the truth. This doesn't mean that everyone will see. But that is within the individual.

This makes me smile. :-)

If it were true, then prophets, leaders, and many who claim to be in tune with the HG would get it right. This is just not the case. Prophets and leaders of the church who very much thought they were in tune were totally and completely wrong on some pretty big stuff. What happened to the mantra, prophets are not infallible? They make mistakes even when they think they are receiving revelation and inspiration. I've heard faithful members bear testimony to completely incorrect things all the time.

This is your mistake. The "pretty big stuff" are the doctrines of salvation. Nothing else is pretty big stuff. Where the critics make their often fatal mistake is in assuming that something that is "big" to them, really is. We are suposed to look at things in God's view.

truth dancer wrote:Even Joseph Smith himself stated that one could not always tell between revelation from God, Satan, or man.

This line has been used by rationalizers for a long time. You can't hid behind it. This is why we study, we look at the entire scriptural canon, we listen to prophets, we seek for an obtain the Spirit for ourselves. We might make a step off the path now and again, but we will get back on and keep going the right direction.


Now, does anyone want to jump in with any ideas about conversion, deconversion, etc?

Thanks for starting this thread, Charity. Here is my take on your approach, at times, and the approach of Bob, Coggins, BC, and several other apologists on both this board, and at MADB.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who has honest questions, opinions, and yes, struggles regarding certain doctrinal issues, let me say this.

I, for one, would appreciate it if apologists did not marginalize my personal dedication to the faith. As a member, it is very disheartening, and hurtful.

When I was a participant at FAIR/MADB, I was new to message boards, and honestly struggling with questions I had. You and several other apologists came at me with both barrels. I was accused of being a troll (not by you, by Juliann a.k.a. Dunamis). I was told by you specifically that I was simply lazy and not well read in the gospel because I didn't know the answers.

On this board, I was told by Bob that I was a hypocrite for not posting my concerns about the Church under my real name. (However, if anyone really wants to find out who I am, I'm sure they could, with a little bit of research). I was told by Coggins that I was a left-wing radical (which is news to me, since I'm a Republican, but that's another story. LOL)

Actually, of all of the apologists that I have dealt with, BCSpace and I have always had the most frank, yet cordial posting relationship. He has never attacked me personally. He has challenged my views on things, and given me references. He has even stood up for me against Juliann when I was accused of revealing FAIRboard Mod names, which I never did. My point is, although we have disagreed, we have managed to disagree amicably, and I have learned things from him.

The same can be said of Dadof7 on the old FAIRboard.

I will say that my personal relationship with Bob, Coggins, and you have improved over time. Through a series of PM conversations I have had with each of you, I have been able to get to know you all as "real people", and I think that the same can be said of me.

I think that the exchange that the two of us have had on my Dynastic Marriage thread is a perfect example of how people with opposing views can show respect for one another and still speak on opposite ends of an issue.

I think that these new websites that have been developed which are more friendly and focus less on debate are good for struggling members. I'm glad to see that happening.

Personally, I would simply ask that you, as someone who I consider to be a rather strong influence with other apologists, simply suggest that these apologists remember that they are not always "fighting the enemy" in every disagreement, particularly when that disagreement is happening between another LDS Church member.

In other words, as an LDS member who may not be as versed on the gospel and have questions, don't question my integrity. Don't question my 40 years of service to the Church.

Edited to add--We are encouraged to fellowship one another. Fellowshipment is a huge part of the LDS Church. When people who you consider to be part of your extended family are hurtful to you, it has a strong impact, and can, over time, impact your ability to want to remain part of an organization.

charity wrote:

If it were true, then prophets, leaders, and many who claim to be in tune with the HG would get it right. This is just not the case. Prophets and leaders of the church who very much thought they were in tune were totally and completely wrong on some pretty big stuff. What happened to the mantra, prophets are not infallible? They make mistakes even when they think they are receiving revelation and inspiration. I've heard faithful members bear testimony to completely incorrect things all the time.

This is your mistake. The "pretty big stuff" are the doctrines of salvation. Nothing else is pretty big stuff. Where the critics make their often fatal mistake is in assuming that something that is "big" to them, really is. We are suposed to look at things in God's view.

Actually, no, this is your mistake, charity. The doctrines of salvation aren't pure by any means. They come to us via men who filter God's words their own worldview and their own wants and desires. And they aren't commandments. They're policies which change with the cultural shifts of the surrounding culture.

Such is the case with Sec 132. View that section from the perspective of 10 years of hidden adultery, continual lies from the pulpit, and the Book of Commandments' canonized prohibition against it, and what is seen is entirely different from what is currently the policy.

truth dancer wrote:Even Joseph Smith himself stated that one could not always tell between revelation from God, Satan, or man.

This line has been used by rationalizers for a long time. You can't hid behind it. This is why we study, we look at the entire scriptural canon, we listen to prophets, we seek for an obtain the Spirit for ourselves. We might make a step off the path now and again, but we will get back on and keep going the right direction.

The canon is full of things that God had nothing to do with. Do you even know what the canonization process is, charity? It's simply a vote taken by the members that they will uphold the words being canonized as scripture. That doesn't mean the words actually are scripture, actually are God-breathed. That just means the members agree to upholding them as such.

For a college teacher, you sure don't show many critical thinking skills.

Thanks for starting this thread.

(Thanks for being such a good sport Liz)! :-)

What tactics and techniques?

I'm going to address this honestly but I do not want this to come across as a personal attack. I am responding with the belief that you are genuinely interested. in my opinion....

You have a way of making everything a fight. You have a tendency to read into comments things that are not there. You seem to think apologizing for your church means everyone is against you. It seems like you would rather have a battle than a discussion. You symbolically spit into the eyes of playmates then play victim when they return the favor. You make up things with which to argue. You have a way of suggesting, either outright or through suggestion that anyone who doesn't believe as do you is either, not in tune with the spirit, a follower of Satan (the other side), not righteous enough, a sinner, or something along these lines. You speak to members of this board as if they are all high school students. You continually state what is not supported by facts. You demonstrate the eliticism that some members find unholy.

Again, I'm just being honest with you... I do not intend to attack you or be disrespectful.

I express my opinion about what I believe,

Yes.

about what the Church teaches,

Not always... often it is YOUR opinion about what the church teaches.

about the interpretation of the "facts" of history.

Again, your opinion or interpretation.

And what extreme length?

Other apologists in my experience also use some of the above mentioned tactics. in my opinion, you use these more than any others I have encountered.

Massive amounts time spent in reading. Observing apologist reponses. That kind of training.

Why not observe folks like Kevin Barney or Ben McGuire if you want some good role models? Again, to be honest I get the impression that you are following in the footsteps of a handful of the worst of the worst. There are some really great men and women out there who are faithful believers and speak positively for their church. Some of my favorite people in the world are strong voices for your church. They have a sense of respect, understanding, care for others and their church, and are truly decent, wonderful human beings. in my opinion they are great assets to your church and our human family.

No, the problem isn't that they all think they are right. The problem is that most of them are wrong. That's the test. We come down here to show that we can pick out the right one.

However you want to phrase it is fine with me... bottom line: The LDS church is no different than the others... everyone thinks they are right. :-)

The Spirit only converts to the truth. Many religions have pieces of the truth, some even have a lot of pieces of the truth. Many people are doing what they should be doing at this time in their lives (including the post-mortal period) who are not members of the LDS Church as they listen to the Spirit and conform their lives to what He tells them.

From YOUR perspective the LDS church is the one and only true church on the earth. From the perspective of billions of others on this planet THEIR faith tradition is the way to God. Their witness is as strong as yours.

I didn't say, nor do I believe that Satan "converts" people to other churches or religions. Satan has no ability to give a person the same sort of confirming experience to falsehood that the Spirit can for truth. People join other churches than the LDS Church for many reasons. Some of those reasons are they misinterpret an experience where the Spirit has testified to them of a truth, as meaning they should join some other church.

So who de-converts people from other religions? If Satan is the one de-converting folks from the LDS church who is it that is working against Scientology or Islam?

Didn't you mean that when you said the apologists, me in particular, may be instrumental in de-convering individuals?

I do not think people leave their various religions because of a person. I DO think others may provide information, knowledge, insight, observations, wisdom etc. etc. that support a move away from their chosen belief.

I feel quite certain, again from interactions with many struggling members that some apologists play a role in someones journey out of the church. (NO ONE IS BLAMING the apologists, just saying that they often confirm the problems).

By this I mean, when a struggling member comes across apologists who deny reality, resort to name calling, demonstrate what a true believer is, contort and twist information to make their case, see things in black and white (for a few examples of many) the struggling believer discovers that there are no good answers, that the only way to remain a believer is to engage in further mental and spiritual contortions, that the arguments are more about the lazy, stupid, sinning questioner than they are about the difficulties in the LDS church. These struggling members who are wanting help often come away from an interaction (or reading the comments from apologists), realizing that all their doubts and questions are more serious than they originally thought and there are no answers that make sense. They come away being called all sorts of names, and condemned for their stupidity. These struggling members realize there are no good answers.

(Again, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just that this seems to be a very common experience... MUCH more common than I think the church realizes).

Or merely a loss of the Spirit, a loss of testimony that just dwindles away, a choice which makes continued activity in Church problematical, a choice when presented with two contrary views to accept the contrary view over the position of the Church.

I have not seen this. I think the idea that there are two equally good choices and one just needs to pick is completely nonsensical.

For me it is like saying, you can believe in Santa Clause or not... just choose. Two equally good choices. :-)

By definition, as they de-convert, release belief, they are no longer faithful to that religion. Once faithful does not matter in the long run. Enduring to the end is a requirement.

I do not equate faithfulness as never ending. Whether it matters or not, one can be faithful to something and then move on.

Again, only true believers are immune to growing, expanding, changing, developing, altering beliefs

Faithful members of the Church who endure to the end are not "True Believers" in the Hoffer sense.

Not all of them of course not. There are however true believers who are unable to change, grow, question, evolve, learn, explore, leave their chosen religion. I think the only folks who are immune to change, growth, development, and disbelief are true believers.

This is your mistake. The "pretty big stuff" are the doctrines of salvation. Nothing else is pretty big stuff. Where the critics make their often fatal mistake is in assuming that something that is "big" to them, really is. We are suposed to look at things in God's view.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what is important and what is not. The point is however, prophets and leaders of the church are unclear when they are under the influence and when they are not. They often believe they are speaking inspired truth when they are not.

This line has been used by rationalizers for a long time. You can't hid behind it.

Not hiding behind anything. Nor am I trying to rationalize anything. Again, it is clear that prophets and leaders make mistakes when they think they are inspired and receiving direction from the HG. Do you not admit they make mistakes? Have you not stated they are fallible?

~dancer~

liz3564 wrote:
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who has honest questions, opinions, and yes, struggles regarding certain doctrinal issues, let me say this.

I, for one, would appreciate it if apologists did not marginalize my personal dedication to the faith. As a member, it is very disheartening, and hurtful.

That shouldn't happen. If I have given that impression, I apologize.

liz3564 wrote:When I was a participant at FAIR/MADB, I was new to message boards, and honestly struggling with questions I had. You and several other apologists came at me with both barrels. I was accused of being a troll (not by you, by Juliann a.k.a. Dunamis). I was told by you specifically that I was simply lazy and not well read in the gospel because I didn't know the answers.

I am sorry if I said that. I can't imagine I did. I have tried never to personalize any comment.

Liz wrote:I think that the exchange that the two of us have had on my Dynastic Marriage thread is a perfect example of how people with opposing views can show respect for one another and still speak on opposite ends of an issue.

I think that these new websites that have been developed which are more friendly and focus less on debate are good for struggling members. I'm glad to see that happening.

Personally, I would simply ask that you, as someone who I consider to be a rather strong influence with other apologists, simply suggest that these apologists remember that they are not always "fighting the enemy" in every disagreement, particularly when that disagreement is happening between another LDS Church member.

I am not a strong influence with other apologists.

About enemies. I don't think any apologist sees a struggling member of the Church as an enemy. But there are enemies out here. And it isn't the particular doctrine or question which tells us that. It is the manner in which the doctrine or question is framed.

You said you were accused of being a troll. On the old FAIR board or the MA&D board, people who may not be trolls come across that way because of ways they behave on the board. It is one thing for a person to say "I have some real problems with Joseph Smith and polyandry. what do you guys think?" and sayin, "How can you people believe a lying scumbag adulterer!"

And I think after being confronted with the real oppositional type of poster, many of us do get a little quick on the trigger. That shouldn't happen.

liz3564 wrote:In other words, as an LDS member who may not be as versed on the gospel and have questions, don't question my integrity. Don't question my 40 years of service to the Church.

I won't. I hope others won't either.

liz3564 wrote:Edited to add--We are encouraged to fellowship one another. Fellowshipment is a huge part of the LDS Church. When people who you consider to be part of your extended family are hurtful to you, it has a strong impact, and can, over time, impact your ability to want to remain part of an organization.

This is where I have to disagree. People cannot, nor should not, be able to get between us and the Savior. And no one should let any other person stand between themselves and the truth as they know it.

Charity wrote:People cannot, nor should not, be able to get between us and the Savior. And no one should let any other person stand between themselves and the truth as they know it.

I agree. But we are all human beings, and want to dwell in places where we feel accepted. My father is an example of someone who has, and until the day he dies, will declare, a testimony of the gospel. He served in the bishopric for years. He was the Young Men's president, Scoutmaster on numerous occasions, and literally devoted his life to the Church. My mother had an affair. My father spoke at the bishop's court on my mother's behalf.

My Mom and Dad later divorced, and ward/stake members gossiped that the troubles between my parents were actually my Dad's fault--that my mother was an innocent victim. In reality, they had problems, and both were at fault as far as the marriage was concerned.

But while my Mom was still basically embraced by the Church congregation, my Dad was shunned. Yes, my Dad is outspoken, and, at times, rubbed people the wrong way, but his treatment was still outrageous.

It hurt him to the core. He was inactive for years. He is just now feeling comfortable coming to Church again. He has health problems, so he is really only able to attend Sacrament Meeting now.

My point is, he never lost his testimony. He still had a relationship with the Savior. But he lost his ability to really remain active. Was it weakness on his part? I'm sure he would say that yes, it was. But I think that as Church members in particular, it is incumbent upon us to be careful about how we address people, particularly other members.

That's why, if I am asked a question, whether or not it's by a troll, I would rather give that person the benefit of the doubt and answer that question with openness and respect. (Provided that the person is asking the question with respect....If, as you say, they are in "attack mode", then that is a different circumstance.) What can it hurt? If I am answering that person's question with the truth of the gospel as I know it, then shouldn't the truth will out?

Just food for thought.

harmony wrote:
Actually, no, this is your mistake, charity. The doctrines of salvation aren't pure by any means. They come to us via men who filter God's words their own worldview and their own wants and desires. And they aren't commandments. They're policies which change with the cultural shifts of the surrounding culture.

Such is the case with Sec 132. View that section from the perspective of 10 years of hidden adultery, continual lies from the pulpit, and the Book of Commandments' canonized prohibition against it, and what is seen is entirely different from what is currently the policy.

Of course, everything comes through men. Christ, Himself, wrote nothing down but depended on others to write His own words. He did make a few corrections in the records of the Nephite people.

I guess we aren't talking about the same thing when we use the term "doctrines of salvation." They are the commandments of God, the ordinances God has instituted (through men, of course), and the pure knowledge of the nature of God. Those are the doctrrines of salvation. Where Zarahemla is, how many people met Nephi on the shore when he got off the ship, where the Chidlren of Israel walked across the sea on dry land, those have nothing to do with salvation.

What is wrong with your view of the command to have plural wives is you don't know what you think you know. What exactly did God tell Joseph to do, and when, for starters. If God told Joseph to keep the practice out of the public eye, Joseph had no alternative but to keep it hidden as much as he could, not to tell the truth when backed into a corner about it or else suffer the wrath of God. You and others have overlooked that fact that God has in different times commanded plural marriage, and in other times commanded monogamy. The current policy is no different from the previous policy. The current practice is different. You don't seem to understand the diffeence between policy and practice.

Harmony wrote:
The canon is full of things that God had nothing to do with. Do you even know what the canonization process is, charity? It's simply a vote taken by the members that they will uphold the words being canonized as scripture. That doesn't mean the words actually are scripture, actually are God-breathed. That just means the members agree to upholding them as such.

Please don't be so condescending. Of course, I know what the canonization process is. It is a vote taken after specific instructions to the prophet as to what should be included. As members we simply ratify the decision. It isn't a ballot, for Pete's sake! Now, it makes me wonder if you understand the process. Ratify versus elect. A big difference there.

And yes, if the words include the specific direction that the Lord has SAID it, then it is "God breathed" as you use the mainstream Christian terminology.

Harmony wrote:For a college teacher, you sure don't show many critical thinking skills.

Sorry that your lack of knowledge about policy versus practice, about what God said and when, and your leaps into judgment based on a lack of knowledge has blinded you to what critical thinking really is.

For what it is worth, I am glad I joined the Church.

Charity, you misattributed your quotes.

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:Charity, you misattributed your quotes.

~dancer~

Which ones? Did the quote function go ballistic?