Seven wrote:If they really cared about the struggling members/lost sheep, you would see compassion and caring along with their view of history. The minute someone comes there with concerns or troubling issues, it's ATTACK time for them.
I think it speaks volumes on their actual confidence in church material that they attack rather than defend. I believe they only get upset because in their heart of hearts, they know it's all BS.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Sorry Scratch, didn't see your question earlier. "Yes" to thinking the contemporary church bad.
Why? I think the whole thing is even more controlling and petty than it once was (I was around on the cusp of "correlation" and the things I saw being introduced into/taken out of MIA appalled me). Also still no ability to deal with history despite apologetic explanations (which would be something devastatingly brilliant along the lines of, "its your fault if you don't know the things that were never taught you.") What else? Oh sexism, racism and homophobia. Arrogance of baptism for the dead. PR-ization under Hinckley. That kind of thing.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Seven wrote: Also,the TBMs on the MAD discussion board left me feeling completely alienated from the people I thought believed in the same principles/morals I did. Some are down right cold hearted there. In defending the church they resort to dishonesty when they say "how could you not know this-I always knew..." "You must be lazy, sinning, not committed to God etc., if you have trouble with church history" "What's the big deal with polygamy?"
This really troubled me about FAIR/MAD as well. I tried to make some changes in this vein when I was a Mod, but you saw how far that got me. LOL
Seven wrote: Also,the TBMs on the MAD discussion board left me feeling completely alienated from the people I thought believed in the same principles/morals I did. Some are down right cold hearted there. In defending the church they resort to dishonesty when they say "how could you not know this-I always knew..." "You must be lazy, sinning, not committed to God etc., if you have trouble with church history" "What's the big deal with polygamy?"
This really troubled me about FAIR/MAD as well. I tried to make some changes in this vein when I was a Mod, but you saw how far that got me. LOL
I think there's a form of natural selection. The most vehement and angry (on both sides of the equation) gravitate to a forum where they can spew their hatred.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Mopologetics was the answer I was looking for. It was a band aid I applied to stop the profuse bleeding. The reality of the unrepentant church masking and hiding its history sat OK with me for a while not because it was right but because I wanted it to be right.
As the silly gospel doctrine answers were compared to the mopologetical answers I started to see a pattern: Defend at all costs, defend at the expense to all rational reasoning and at all chances Lie Lie Lie.
I thought Mormon apologists were involved in a scholarly endeavour and when I spoke with several actual anthropological professionals they laughed in my face and told me that I was on the right track to doubt the silly posits given to me as "undeniable fact".
I came out of it a better person and formed a deep distrust of individuals who place reason below the fraud they are tenured to protect.
Peterson and his ilk will not be remembered for anything, and in the end this is the reality that they need to pick up on. They will be lauded for a season by their ever shrinking community of supporters.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning