beastie wrote:i suspect that the most vocal and fervent defenders of the faith are more plagued by doubts than most members. That's why they become so vocal and fervent. They're trying to convince themselves, first and foremost.
You can add me to the list of people who suspect that to be true.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
beastie wrote:i suspect that the most vocal and fervent defenders of the faith are more plagued by doubts than most members. That's why they become so vocal and fervent. They're trying to convince themselves, first and foremost.
I suspect this as well. I also believe those who feel they must often testify of the God of the Lost Car Keys are in the same position - trying to convince themselves.
Yes, of course. GA's (BKP, for example, If I recall correctly) actually come right out and admit, in effect, that that is one of the main purposes of bearing testimony ("Testimony is gained in the bearing of it"). Frankly, it was really the main reason I bore my testimony when I was a believing member. It was myself I was trying to convince.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
beastie wrote:i suspect that the most vocal and fervent defenders of the faith are more plagued by doubts than most members. That's threatens theirwhy they become so vocal and fervent. They're trying to convince themselves, first and foremost.
I think this is true to some extent. Sometimes there are other reasons. Converts try to justify their decision to themselves and the people they left behind and at the same time establish their bona fides with their new coreligionists. Sometimes it's just a macho thing. Look at apologetic blogs and boards in general (not just LDS) and you'll often find YAs and even teens, almost always male,are the loudest contributors.
The truly insecure often go further. The very existence of those who differ from them threatens their beliefs, so they have to critics up with sarcasm, shouting, and ridicule. In extreme cases (I'm most familiar with this among Catholics) they'll yearn for some coercive power, like a confessional state, to repress dissenters in order to allow them to repress their own doubts. If Protestants or Freemasons or atheists aren't allowed in the public square, belief will have massive social support.
Bazooka wrote:I have a theory about Maklelan and his postings here.
I think he comes here to quell his own faith doubts and cognitive dissonance by defending the Church on subjects he himself finds problematic. Sort of like cauterising a wound.
I did this very thing you think Makelan is doing. There are few reasons to get involved in Mormon apologetics including wanting fame within the community, actually hoping to defend the Church, and lastly and I think is the most common reason - an exercise in quieting one's own doubts.
hans castorp wrote:The truly insecure often go further.
Kind of like Droopy's homophobia.
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
Bazooka wrote:I have a theory about Maklelan and his postings here.
I think he comes here to quell his own faith doubts and cognitive dissonance by defending the Church on subjects he himself finds problematic. Sort of like cauterising a wound.
I did this very thing you think Makelan is doing. There are few reasons to get involved in Mormon apologetics including wanting fame within the community, actually hoping to defend the Church, and lastly and I think is the most common reason - an exercise in quieting one's own doubts.
To be fair...I think we all do the same thing...at least I know I do...I'm 99.99999999% sure that Mormonism is a complete fraud...but its that last .000000001% of doubt in my conclusion that keeps me coming here
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace
"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick
“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
Craig Paxton wrote:They know the same issues we are all aware of and yet they remain believers…not in a traditional sense…but still they believe. Obviously, every individual is unique and processes information differently…so why did that same information lead me out of the church and kept them in…and why would this information not have the same impact on all of us? Why doesn’t it cause them to lose belief? Do they have that lingering something hidden within the walls of their colelctive minds...that something just doesn't add up, that somethings is wrong...and yet they successfully ignore it?
I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not going to share a whole lot here, but I imagine that my assumptions and presuppositions about the Church and what it is and purports to be were quite different when I joined the Church from those of most people here. The challenges and doubts I have haven't yet really undermined my testimony.
lostindc wrote:I did this very thing you think Makelan is doing. There are few reasons to get involved in Mormon apologetics including wanting fame within the community, actually hoping to defend the Church, and lastly and I think is the most common reason - an exercise in quieting one's own doubts.
Bazooka wrote:I have a theory about Maklelan and his postings here.
I think he comes here to quell his own faith doubts and cognitive dissonance by defending the Church on subjects he himself finds problematic.
No, I don't think I've ever come here and commented on the issues that personally challenge me.
Bazooka wrote:Sort of like cauterising a wound.
When he realises the blood flow is simply too great (see the thread about a Universal Flood being Church doctrine) he disappears for a time.
It's just a theory, and I may be doing him a massive disservice. He may simply have periods when he's too busy or on a plane etc that just happen to coincide with discussions where he has backed himself into a blatantly untenable position....
I've been in the South Pacific for a couple weeks. Please forgive me for not remaining dedicated to that riveting discussion. I promise you you've never seen me backed into a blatantly untenable position.
maklelan wrote: I'm not an apologist, and you're not ever close.
Not a professional one in the sense Dr. Peterson et. al. are, but you certainly engage in apologetics here in the sense of one who defends the reasonableness of a faith. You're not hashing out attempts at theistic justification - which is a good call on your part - but you are clearly engaging in soft apologia on this board here and there.