Maklelan - A romantic incentive

[_Sanctorian]

Hey Mak,

I know you don't like my suggestions. I'm a bit of a dick. I did however find these youtube video interviews you did. Very interesting stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW2jIr_vZjU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-3olkyzjhY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDFPHtWZlLc

One youtube comment by aussieguy55 3 years ago states "Interesting interviews. However he needs tone down his aggressive manner on message boards or he will turn people off inquiring about his faith."

I guess what I'm trying to say is do you think your interactions on these boards is helping spread the Gospel of Jesus or hurting it? I've shared with you my perceptions of you (after watching your interview, I will say my perception has changed to a more positive perception) and those perceptions have to do with my interactions with you on this board.

I clearly have a distaste in my mouth based on our interactions as I'm sure you do towards me as well. The reason for this post is to ask a favor of you. It will help me tone down my rhetoric towards you. When I watch your interview, I like the message, I like your expertise, I like your tone. It comes across very respectful. I applaud your knowledge. But then I interact with you on this board and I feel like aussieguy55. Your views of the Church as an organization are clearly not the "norm" on this board or in general across the globe. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. That's when your message loses appeal and people see you coming across as "aggressive" and at least for me, a huge turn off.

Can you stick to your expertise and share your knowledge without having to relentlessly defend the faith to which there is no proof it is true even if the details may seem "false" in your opinion? Just asking for a favor. It would help me out, but you might not care about that.

[_aussieguy55]

One resspondent said in response to aussie "
Users to whom Mak responds to in forums are not seekers of the faith. They are belligerent anti-mormons interested only in spreading misinformation. Setting the record straight may be perceived as "aggressive," to those not interested in fact or scholarship."

So someone who disagrees with you is according to this guy "belligerant antimormons" Would you class Carl Mosser or Dr Heiser (The Divine Council) as belligerant? Mosser as well as a PHd has a few Masters degrees.

[_Chomsky]

Man, some people on these forums sure are obsessed with poster Maklelan. Does Everybody Wang Chung, et al, have a man crush on him or something?

[_maklelan]

Hey Mak,

I know you don't like my suggestions. I'm a bit of a dick. I did however find these youtube video interviews you did. Very interesting stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW2jIr_vZjU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-3olkyzjhY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDFPHtWZlLc

One youtube comment by aussieguy55 3 years ago states "Interesting interviews. However he needs tone down his aggressive manner on message boards or he will turn people off inquiring about his faith."

I guess what I'm trying to say is do you think your interactions on these boards is helping spread the Gospel of Jesus or hurting it? I've shared with you my perceptions of you (after watching your interview, I will say my perception has changed to a more positive perception) and those perceptions have to do with my interactions with you on this board.

I clearly have a distaste in my mouth based on our interactions as I'm sure you do towards me as well. The reason for this post is to ask a favor of you. It will help me tone down my rhetoric towards you. When I watch your interview, I like the message, I like your expertise, I like your tone. It comes across very respectful. I applaud your knowledge. But then I interact with you on this board and I feel like aussieguy55. Your views of the Church as an organization are clearly not the "norm" on this board or in general across the globe. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. That's when your message loses appeal and people see you coming across as "aggressive" and at least for me, a huge turn off.

Can you stick to your expertise and share your knowledge without having to relentlessly defend the faith to which there is no proof it is true even if the details may seem "false" in your opinion? Just asking for a favor. It would help me out, but you might not care about that.

I appreciate the efforts to deescalate the rhetoric and the tone, and I will do my best to reciprocate. I do have issues with your concern, though, and the first is that you are suggesting I am trying to defend the veracity of the LDS Church. I cannot recall trying to do that at any point in recent years. What I have tried to do is correct misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Church. I have taken a sympathetic point of view, but I don't assert LDS faith claims, and my arguments are generally aimed at correcting what I believe to be mischaracterizations of people and motivations associated with the contemporary Church. Certainly there is nothing inappropriate about me criticizing the notion that most LDS people grew up being taught the entire Book of Mormon took place in the northeastern United States, or that Latter-day Saints normally loath all non-Mormon religious architecture. I don't see how the veracity of the Church's faith claims even bear at all on those issues. I don't care what anyone here thinks about the Church's faith claims. I care about how accurately they represent it. Perhaps you can point to a specific example of me specifically defending the indefensible in the last few months.

Next, as someone with a lot more access to the internal workings of the Church and the global Church community than anyone else here, I don't think it inappropriate for me to comment on Church issues that fall outside the immediate vicinity of my formal academic training. In fact, I would think people concerned with the contemporary Church and its nature and function would welcome insight from someone who has that kind of access. Oddly, my insight is most heavily criticized when it undermines assumptions and accusations about what goes on inside the COB and the CAB. Go figure.

Lastly, when the message is, "Stop defending your worldview because it really turns me off when you do," I think you've let your dogmatism get the better of your common sense. I have consistently been less aggressive, less offensive, less insulting, and less profane than all the people I have interacted with on this board, and where I have not, I have apologize and have tried my best to make amends. I don't appreciate people calling me dumbass and telling me I'm an idiot and then turning around and telling me to be more respectful to them. And then calling me dumbass. This is not only a reference to your recent post. This kind of stuff happens all the time. I can be snarky in my rhetoric, but I am very, very, very rarely as insulting--much less more--as the people with whom I interact. So please don't tell me it's my responsibility to be the nice one.

[_maklelan]

One resspondent said in response to aussie "
Users to whom Mak responds to in forums are not seekers of the faith. They are belligerent anti-mormons interested only in spreading misinformation. Setting the record straight may be perceived as "aggressive," to those not interested in fact or scholarship."

So someone who disagrees with you is according to this guy "belligerant antimormons" Would you class Carl Mosser or Dr Heiser (The Divine Council) as belligerant? Mosser as well as a PHd has a few Masters degrees.

Well, Carl and Mike don't really engage anything on the message boards I frequent, but I don't think the intention was to suggest all people who disagree with me are belligerent anti-Mormons. I think the idea was that a certain set of specific posters on here with whom I regularly clash are "belligerent anti-mormons." I do think there are certainly belligerent posters on this board, and I don't think it should be off-limits to point that out or criticize it.

[_aussieguy55]

Please can we stop these threads about what is wrong/right about Maklelan?

[_Sanctorian]

I appreciate the efforts to deescalate the rhetoric and the tone, and I will do my best to reciprocate. I do have issues with your concern, though, and the first is that you are suggesting I am trying to defend the veracity of the LDS Church. I cannot recall trying to do that at any point in recent years. What I have tried to do is correct misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Church. I have taken a sympathetic point of view, but I don't assert LDS faith claims, and my arguments are generally aimed at correcting what I believe to be mischaracterizations of people and motivations associated with the contemporary Church. Certainly there is nothing inappropriate about me criticizing the notion that most LDS people grew up being taught the entire Book of Mormon took place in the northeastern United States, or that Latter-day Saints normally loath all non-Mormon religious architecture. I don't see how the veracity of the Church's faith claims even bear at all on those issues. I don't care what anyone here thinks about the Church's faith claims. I care about how accurately they represent it. Perhaps you can point to a specific example of me specifically defending the indefensible in the last few months.

What you define as indefensible would be different than my definition. I will say this, when you make the ascertation that "it is not your experience" that such and such happens in the church, you are in the minority on this board. There are 15 million members on record of which there are estimated to be 3-5 million active. Therefore, you are also the minority within your own religion. If we wanted to accurately describe the LDS church and what members believe or do not believe its teachings to be, their experiences within the church etc., don't you think we ought to go with what the majorities says? Maybe we should start asking the less active members what they think instead of relying on the minority?

Next, as someone with a lot more access to the internal workings of the Church and the global Church community than anyone else here, I don't think it inappropriate for me to comment on Church issues that fall outside the immediate vicinity of my formal academic training. In fact, I would think people concerned with the contemporary Church and its nature and function would welcome insight from someone who has that kind of access. Oddly, my insight is most heavily criticized when it undermines assumptions and accusations about what goes on inside the COB and the CAB. Go figure.

Couple of reasons why I think you get push back on this, you tend to say things like "I do not feel like I can share intimate details" with regards to the inner workings. So why would anyone assume you have any valuable input if the details are lacking? Also, and I'm going to assume here because my understanding of the COB and CAB is everything is highly compartmentalized. Therefore, I would assume you do have some knowledge of the inner workings, but limited knowledge. I do not assume you have any significant information that is of value. Ie, I would like to see the financials on the church. I don't think you have any information to provide me.

Lastly, when the message is, "Stop defending your worldview because it really turns me off when you do," I think you've let your dogmatism get the better of your common sense. I have consistently been less aggressive, less offensive, less insulting, and less profane than all the people I have interacted with on this board, and where I have not, I have apologize and have tried my best to make amends. I don't appreciate people calling me d***a** and telling me I'm an idiot and then turning around and telling me to be more respectful to them. And then calling me d***a**. This is not only a reference to your recent post. This kind of stuff happens all the time. I can be snarky in my rhetoric, but I am very, very, very rarely as insulting--much less more--as the people with whom I interact. So please don't tell me it's my responsibility to be the nice one.

What makes you think people like being called or implied they are being a dick? What makes you think people like being told they are ignorant or ill-informed? That their worldview is not accurate? You message may be less profane, but offensive is offensive any way you slice it.

[_aussieguy55]

For those interested in how he interacts with someone who has at least equal qualifications as he does see http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... uteronomy/

[_maklelan]

What you define as indefensible would be different than my definition. I will say this, when you make the ascertation that "it is not your experience" that such and such happens in the church, you are in the minority on this board. There are 15 million members on record of which there are estimated to be 3-5 million active. Therefore, you are also the minority within your own religion. If we wanted to accurately describe the LDS church and what members believe or do not believe its teachings to be, their experiences within the church etc., don't you think we ought to go with what the majorities says? Maybe we should start asking the less active members what they think instead of relying on the minority?

If you want to talk about the broader Mormon community that's fine, but the majority of the threads here are directly aimed at the institution of the Church and its leadership and active membership. In that regard, I have plenty of insight.

Couple of reasons why I think you get push back on this, you tend to say things like "I do not feel like I can share intimate details" with regards to the inner workings.

I am precluded from discussing confidential matters, yes, just like any other job. When I speak about not feeling like I can talk about intimate matters, that's usually a reference to details about my own person and background. There I will obviously keep things private, and I find it silly that anonymous posters on this board would chide someone for not divulging the most intimate of details about their personal life.

So why would anyone assume you have any valuable input if the details are lacking?

Because they know better than to think that when someone says they're not going to divulge confidential information or private details of their personal life, it's likely not because they're just making stuff up, but because they don't want to divulge confidential information or private details of their personal life.

Also, and I'm going to assume here because my understanding of the COB and CAB is everything is highly compartmentalized. Therefore, I would assume you do have some knowledge of the inner workings, but limited knowledge. I do not assume you have any significant information that is of value. Ie, I would like to see the financials on the church. I don't think you have any information to provide me.

I don't have printouts, but I have had plenty of insight. I've discussed financials in the past here.

What makes you think people like being called or implied they are being a dick?

I never called anyone a dick who didn't first spend a great deal of time belittling and insulting me.

What makes you think people like being told they are ignorant or ill-informed?

I never called anyone ignorant or ill-informed who didn't first insist they knew better than me and then proceed to show they didn't.

That their worldview is not accurate? You message may be less profane, but offensive is offensive any way you slice it.

When a critic on a message board critical of Mormonism starts complaining that I'm the one being offensive (especially one with an intentionally provocing avatar), usually they're being far more offensive, but they're getting frustrated because they're running out of rhetorical options. There have been exceptions, and I have taken responsibility for my actions when it's happened, but I don't think I'm the one being out of line here.

[_Sanctorian]

If you want to talk about the broader Mormon community that's fine, but the majority of the threads here are directly aimed at the institution of the Church and its leadership and active membership. In that regard, I have plenty of insight.

As does anyone else that was/is an active member. I attend church once a month for my spouse. That makes me an active ex-member. There are plenty on this board that still attend and have not removed their records from the church and do not share your view point. Your opinion is still the minority even among active members on this board.

I am precluded from discussing confidential matters, yes, just like any other job. When I speak about not feeling like I can talk about intimate matters, that's usually a reference to details about my own person and background. There I will obviously keep things private, and I find it silly that anonymous posters on this board would chide someone for not divulging the most intimate of details about their personal life.

If you are precluded, don't comment/defend unless you can back it up with some evidence. That's why you get push back.

Because they know better than to think that when someone says they're not going to divulge confidential information or private details of their personal life, it's likely not because they're just making stuff up, but because they don't want to divulge confidential information or private details of their personal life.

See above.

I don't have printouts, but I have had plenty of insight. I've discussed financials in the past here.

See above.

I never called anyone a dick who didn't first spend a great deal of time belittling and insulting me.

Ugh!

I never called anyone ignorant or ill-informed who didn't first insist they knew better than me and then proceed to show they didn't.

Your opinion doesn't count as knowing better than someone.

When a critic on a message board critical of Mormonism starts complaining that I'm the one being offensive (especially one with an intentionally provocing avatar), usually they're being far more offensive, but they're getting frustrated because they're running out of rhetorical options. There have been exceptions, and I have taken responsibility for my actions when it's happened, but I don't think I'm the one being out of line here.

So I extend an olive branch to you and you proceed to attack my avatar. by the way, I never run out of rhetoric. I am giving you an opportunity to end yours. If you want to continue, I'll gladly go the rounds with you.