DiscussMormonism.com

Very eloquently said, Wade. It’s a pity that more prominent apologists—like Daniel Peterson and the FAIR Mormon leadership—lack your honesty and introspection. It’s no wonder that you wound up going your separate ways.

It’s hard to find common ground when one side thinks the other is working as an agent of Satan, and the other side thinks that the other is a cult.

Wade
They may forget that the role of convincing and converting others rightly rest with the third member of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit), and at best their role is to simply make room for faith. And, the more they unwittingly usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, and presume to convince and convert, the more they are vulnerable to being convinced and converted by their fellow natural men.

Um...... honestly man, this is just ludicrous. As if the Holy Ghost has to step aside from converting and influencing because some gung-ho apologists are taking his role?!
Come on man, that is sheer nonsense.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:56 am

Wade
They may forget that the role of convincing and converting others rightly rest with the third member of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit), and at best their role is to simply make room for faith. And, the more they unwittingly usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, and presume to convince and convert, the more they are vulnerable to being convinced and converted by their fellow natural men.

Um...... honestly man, this is just ludicrous. As if the Holy Ghost has to step aside from converting and influencing because some gung-ho apologists are taking his role?!
Come on man, that is sheer nonsense.

I think you are conflating "nonsense" with confusion or ignorance on your part. It isn't that the Holy Ghost has to step aside for the gung-ho apologists (I suggested nothing of the sort), or step aside for a woke politician for that matter (I mention this to make a point). It is about the gung-ho apologist, or the woke politician, engaging in issues, and using methods and venues, that not only don't lend themselves to spiritual conversion, but often run counter to spiritual conversion.

Said another way, while the role of the Holy Ghost is to convince and convert, that role tends to be relegated to spiritual issues, using spiritual means, and most often in spiritually conducive venues. The Spirit tends not convert people about secular issues, using the scientific method, on message boards where contention is prevalent.

This should be obvious to you given that Moroni 10 and Alma 32 say nothing (implicitly or explicitly) about going to an online message board and asking your gung-ho apologists for a good counterargument to what the critics have said about a topic that isn't relevant to coming to Christ and becoming more like him.

Thanks, Wade Englund

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:16 am

Very eloquently said, Wade. It’s a pity that more prominent apologists—like Daniel Peterson and the FAIR Mormon leadership—lack your honesty and introspection. It’s no wonder that you wound up going your separate ways.

You may not understand this, but members who are inclined to defend the faith can hold divergent views about apologetics, with each being completely honest and introspective. Only a dishonest and non-introspective person would automatically assume otherwise.

However, since I continue to be an avid consumer of Interpreter Foundation material, and I actively follow Daniel Peterson on Facebook pretty much on a daily basis, I see very little in the way of apologetics, and considerable amounts of "gathering" material. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Dr. Peterson left off participating on discussion boards such as this prior to me.

So, as usual, you are incorrect in most every way, particularly in regards to Dr. Peterson as well as he and I having supposedly gone our separate way.

Thanks, Wade Englund

wenglund wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:15 am

So, as usual, you are incorrect in most every way, particularly in regards to Dr. Peterson as well as he and I having supposedly gone our separate way.

Thanks, Wade Englund

Wade, refusing a compliment from Dr. Scratch and refusing to be pinned down on any point seems puzzling.

Wade:

> I don’t do apologetics

> I gather



Good Lord, the bathroom is -> because you’re full of crap.

- Doc

wenglund wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:30 am

I found this happening with me quite often as an apologists, and even to some degree now as a "gatherer." I would begin posting with joy in my heart and a desire to respectfully interact with those I disagree with, and often by the end of the session I would feeling sick in my heart at what I had done and what had been done to me, and the profound waste and hurt of it all--not to mention my mind reeling from the bizarreness of what all had happened to no real good. And, no matter how hard I tried each time to have things go otherwise, eventually things kept ending up the same. So, I gave it up. I have had the same experience discussing politics online. And, while I am inclined to assume personal responsibility for my uncivil behavior, I believe the tribalism of many, though not all, apologists and critics alike, plays a contributing role.

Thanks, Wade Englund

Thanks for your candid response, Wade. I respect your efforts to live your religion in a way that is in keeping with your personal values. I also note and appreciate the independent and creative thinking you apply to your spiritual life.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:16 am

Very eloquently said, Wade. It’s a pity that more prominent apologists—like Daniel Peterson and the FAIR Mormon leadership—lack your honesty and introspection. It’s no wonder that you wound up going your separate ways.

I believe that introspection is key. What does a person really want and what are they willing to do to obtain it? We may not agree with Wade, but he appears to be putting his own beliefs about his personal spiritual welfare before the game of Mopologetics. I think we should respect that full stop.

So as far as I can tell "gathering" is not apologetics because ii doesn't presume a rational basis for discussion. At least that's what I gather in attempted conversations with Wade. If so, i too applaud such a perspective. There is no rational convincing of faith. It is anti-intellectual and must best work from that perspective. There is no rational argument for God or a spirit world. one must presuppose such things. And if one is questioning those very things, there is no progress to make rationally speaking. Any sense of being reasonable only fits subjectively...once one assumes reason only fits within a spirit realm. Or something of that sort.

I'd say such a perspective absolutely disrespect's human reason and all that has come from human effort to be reasonable. But if God truly is most important to someone, then that appears to be exactly what God wants. Jesus, as they say, didn't come to bring peace but a sword. God's understanding far exceeds man's. And, of course, we as humans can't possibly understand God's ways, for they aren't our ways....and all of that. Pretending that a believer can cross the chasm and provide reason for their beliefs is an enormous waste of time...except human's often aren't rational characters. So unreason often convinces us. But then that might just take us into the lying for the Lord arena.

Ah well...I see the freshness of Wade's move here. It's understandable...particularly if the fruits of apologetics continues to be completely void o producing anything.