Mormon Infobia...

[_Drifting]

New thread started for the loose/tight translation discussion

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting wrote:

I think you need to accept that whilst it might not be a matter of importance to you, others can and do see it differently. But lets leave that there.

I think that this is also true, just so that you know. What frustrates me perhaps (and maybe it is a boon to civil discourse) is that we can get bothered so much over the face in the hat, when it is probably far more critical in every way to deal with issues where the conflicts are greater and much more prevalent. For example, polygamy, where the church's history and engagement of the material seems almost schizophrenic at times. I think that the face in the hat makes a good introductory discussion - but only if it results in our getting to the point where we start talking about what the church may or may not be obligated to disclose, and in what way. And if we can't get past the notion of everywhere and all the time, then we cannot move into the murkier problems that present much more conflict.

I think this is the fundamental issue that Jensen speaks of. The church does need to find a way to get information out there. It needs to do so in a way that doesn't compete with its primary objectives, and it needs to find a way to encourage people with interest to get there. As simple as that sounds, the church - even with its rather stellar group dealing with the internet (for a church its stellar) is only just now realizing that its own official website is not being used in the way that the church had hoped for. My own interaction with the official church material (outside of discussions of this sort) is far more likely to occur using my phone apps than a web browser.

Finally, and we haven't really gotten to this issue (but it is a part of this dialogue), I am always less than thrilled with the idea of correlation. Where we have (for lack of better term) mid-level bureaucrats in the church who make many decisions that merely get reviewed by the leadership. I am not sure there is a better option though (other than giving me absolute control over materials *wink* *wink*.) These decisions create flaws in the process as well, and this tends to be seen more in errors of omission than errors of commission. If someone in these ranks is disturbed by the notion of seer stones, it makes it less likely that we see discourse on them, since my take is that top level review will tend to discover less of what is missing that should have been included, and more of what got through that maybe shouldn't have. Here we encounter friction between divergent opinions in the church.

[_Drifting]

Ben, from what I have seen from your posting I think you would be a great candidate to run the project Jensen would like to see happen.

Discussions of the sort we are having here I find to be healthy. Factual, truthful discussion about the Church should not present the harm that I believe people in positions within the Church are a bit scared of - I know you dispute this fear factor but all I can say is that it exists within the leaders and teachers that I have interacted with throughout my Church life.

Unfortunately, discussions like this are not facilitated (I like the way I've put that) within the Church programmes. If members get to participate in these types of debates, within the Church environment and with knowledgeable people then less people would leave. I would certainly feel more comfortable with participation in the Church if this type of thing was embraced.

I would like to see a type of Adult Institute programme, to cover the type of questions and subjects that, when raised, cause teachers to squirm and members to shun (which happens in my world).

[_Fence Sitter]

Ben,

I would also suggest what the Church needs is more people like you posting. This board can be brutal. It has been a refreshing change too see a thread, for the most part, that has gone on this long in the manner it has. I think that many apologist quickly become tired of answering the same questions over and over again and resort to sarcasm, trolling, contumely and insulting condescension. (I know that critics do this also.) But if the Church wants to have an online image that reflects its core beliefs it needs this type and tone of discussion from its defenders, not the kind that instantly label anyone as "liars" with whom they disagree or stock rote answers that are just designed to annoy.

[_Runtu]

Ben,

I would also suggest what the Church needs is more people like you posting. This board can be brutal. It has been a refreshing change too see a thread, for the most part, that has gone on this long in the manner it has. I think that many apologist quickly become tired of answering the same questions over and over again and resort to sarcasm, trolling, contumely and insulting condescension. (I know that critics do this also.) But if the Church wants to have an online image that reflects its core beliefs it needs this type and tone of discussion from its defenders, not the kind that instantly label anyone as "liars" with whom they disagree or stock rote answers that are just designed to annoy.

Ben is good man, and I have always found him to be reasonable and cordial. It gives me a lot of hope that there are some people on these boards who can have an intelligent discussion without descending into invective.

[_Yoda]

Ben, I really appreciate you posting in this thread, and on the board in general.

You are a great representation of what an apologist should be. Thank you for that. Maybe some of the other defenders, such as BC and ldsfaq can learn from your example.

You may have already covered this, and if you have, I apologize for asking. I have not read this thread in full. You can link back to where you discussed this if you have already covered it.

Why has there been so much confusion regarding the teachings of the seer stones and the Urim and Thumim? For years, I thought they were the same thing because they are used interchangeably.

[_Themis]

Ben is good man, and I have always found him to be reasonable and cordial. It gives me a lot of hope that there are some people on these boards who can have an intelligent discussion without descending into invective.

Ben is a good man, and is one of the few defenders who wants real discussion. I think Jensen is a good man to. The problem is not

Ben

I think this is the fundamental issue that Jensen speaks of. The church does need to find a way to get information out there.

The church has done too good of a job getting information out. Apologia, particularly honest apologia is a good part of the problem. The only problem bigger then this is the reality that the church is not true. This is something Jensen and Ben do not understand, and so I know I will be ignored. It's not like they can do anything to stop the flow of those leaving, other then doing what I have said for some time. That is deleting all apologia and just start calling all this information anti-Mormon lies. It's apologia that confirms all this critical information as being true.

Active members who may come across critical information do not accept it as true. They need to confirm it with what the church says, or at least find information from church friendly sources. This just confirms what the critics are saying, and the more open minded member can see what it means and that most of the apologetic explanations are not reasonable(to say it nicely). I suppose though that this can of worms is already open and cannot be closed. Why is it that some members like Runtu who do apologia for so many years and then conclude that the church is not true? Do you really think that something could be said that will stop them concluding the church is not what it claims?

[_Themis]

Ben, I really appreciate you posting in this thread, and on the board in general.

You are a great representation of what an apologist should be. Thank you for that. Maybe some of the other defenders, such as BC and ldsfaq can learn from your example.

I don't want to offend Ben, but I think he does more to create(unintentionally) non-believers then people bcpace or ldsfaq could ever do. They may make the church look bad, but members who are questioning know enough about the church to ignore these people.

[Guest]

Ben,

I would also suggest what the Church needs is more people like you posting. This board can be brutal. It has been a refreshing change too see a thread, for the most part, that has gone on this long in the manner it has. I think that many apologist quickly become tired of answering the same questions over and over again and resort to sarcasm, trolling, contumely and insulting condescension. (I know that critics do this also.) But if the Church wants to have an online image that reflects its core beliefs it needs this type and tone of discussion from its defenders, not the kind that instantly label anyone as "liars" with whom they disagree or stock rote answers that are just designed to annoy.

Ben is good man, and I have always found him to be reasonable and cordial. It gives me a lot of hope that there are some people on these boards who can have an intelligent discussion without descending into invective.

Just because some people choose to not judge YOUR "invective", to ignore it and just respond to the claims, doesn't mean YOU are actually a good person, and people like LDSfaqs, Bcspace etc. are "bad" for judging you, while they are also answering you.

For example, you continue to LIE claiming that "I" never address any issues nor present any evidence, that all I do is call you names. Do you really expect me to not call you a liar when you are being one? I answer claims all the time, yet you lie and claim I don't.

I appreciate people like Ben, but don't presume YOU are somehow better. You're not even close. My "invective" ONLY exists because of YOUR invective, belittling, degrading, lying etc. about Mormons and the Church. Ben's a scholar, me I'm a fighter. We each have our roles.

One other thing..... You all make me laugh with your "pretend" respect of Ben....
When LDS scholars like Ben are not here, and even when they are, you all Mock, deride, degrade, etc. scholars and apologists like Ben.

So, spare us the "pretend" respect, that you actually respect ANY LDS, or LDS scholar and apologist. You think they ALL are liars, they ALL are stupid, etc., no matter how respectful and scholared they are toward critics and anti-mormons.

[_Buffalo]

Just because some people choose to not judge YOUR "invective", to ignore it and just respond to the claims, doesn't mean YOU are actually a good person, and people like LDSfaqs, Bcspace etc. are "bad" for judging you, while they are also answering you.

For example, you continue to LIE claiming that "I" never address any issues nor present any evidence, that all I do is call you names. Do you really expect me to not call you a liar when you are being one? I answer claims all the time, yet you lie and claim I don't.

I appreciate people like Ben, but don't presume YOU are somehow better. You're not even close. My "invective" ONLY exists because of YOUR invective, belittling, degrading, lying etc. about Mormons and the Church. Ben's a scholar, me I'm a fighter. We each have our roles.

Runtu is a better man than you could ever hope to be in your wildest dreams. He is honest, intelligent and cordial. You're an ignorant boor.

The bolded section is particularly ironic, considering that you once again posted a substance-free rant filled with insults.