As I said in my last post, I watched some of the LDS general conference this last weekend. As I was doing so, I thought of many things that I want to write about--and I probably will. But I want to take a minute to talk about why I write. In fact, I want to take a minute to find out why I write.
I get worked up about something--perhaps something a Mormon leader says, or something that a politician says or whatever--and I want to tell everyone about it. I want people to understand my position. I want people to agree with my position. I want to be right. I want the truth to be known. I want a lot of things. But I need to stop for a minute and think about what effect my writing has on people who read it and whether that's what I really want to be doing.
There are so many ideas floating around out there and so many of them seem wise to me. Some people, like Richard Dawkins, say that you should just say what is true regardless of whether it hurts people's feelings. He's not ashamed to talk about how ridiculous religion is and how silly people are for believing in it. There are people who say that it is best to be kind and to put the feelings of others above proving them wrong. I think both ideas are right and good. I think that it's important to stand up for what is true and I think it's important to consider others' feelings when interacting with them.
There're people like Penn Jillette and Ron Paul who are libertarians and say that the government should be limited to maximize the freedoms people enjoy and that charity is voluntary, so government programs for the poor can't be considered charitable since they're mandatory. There are people like Obama and Bill Gates who say that we should have social programs to help people who are in need, that high taxes are justified because those who have much should give some of their excess to those who have little. I agree with both of these ideas. I think it's important to have restraints on the government and I think that many of the social programs we have do much good.
So, why do I post? What is the purpose I wish to accomplish? I don't know. Perhaps my primary goal is that of equality. I think that all people should be treated equal and should be granted equal protection under the law. So, I want the words I say to have the effect of convincing people to vote for equality. And, I do specifically mean marriage equality, but all other kinds of equality as well. I think gay people should be treated equal by being allowed to marry. I think transexuals should be treated equal by allowing them to live their life as the gender of their choice--that, for example a person born male who transitions to female should be treated as any other female in society. I think it's hateful and hurtful when people make comments about transexuals being abominable or unnatural. I think that women should be treated equally by being paid the same as a man with comparable qualifications, that they should not be treated as sex objects, and that their personal space should not be invaded by sexual harassment.
Another goal (which may also be my primary one, making equality secondary, I don't know) is to share truth. I want everything I say to be correct. Whenever I say something wrong, I want it to be corrected. If what I say comes out wrong or is demonstrably false, then I'm doing it wrong. I mean to be accurate in all of my words. I want to represent reality as accurately as possible. But more than that, I want people to believe the things that I say. Even if the things that I say are true, if no one reads them because I present them poorly (perhaps I am too angry or too focused on one particular issue, perhaps I am too offensive or condescending) then I am missing my mark. I want to be accurate but also to be accessible. I want people to feel that I respect differing viewpoints even if I don't accept them. And I don't want to present myself as an absolute authority on any issue, because I'm not and everyone knows it.
One thing that has been making me introspective in this way is a conversation I'm having with my sister. If I am honest with myself and look at the consequences of my blog posts over the last two years, I can see that one of the main effects that it has had is polarization. Those who believe in the LDS church have stopped reading my blog (aside from a small handful). They have written me off as someone who is bitter toward the church--the stereotypical "apostate" who "can leave the church but can't leave the church alone". In effect, all it has done is cement their view that they are correct--that their church is true and that what their church says about those who disagree with it is also true. And those who agree with me stay here and appreciate what I write because it aligns with their own views. I don't want this to happen. This is not an effect that I want (yes, I do want like-minded people reading my blog, and even commenting and telling me they agree to be sure).
I want to convince Mormons that their church is false. Not because I hate the church or because I'm bitter or anything else, but because I honestly believe that it is a false church. I believe that it is a fraud. And I believe that it takes advantage of its members. Clearly I'm not doing it right because (as far as I know) I haven't convinced anyone and I've driven off all of the people that I've wanted to convince.
So, before I finish writing all my posts about General Conference, I want to make sure that I'm doing what I mean to be doing. Do I want to criticize the talks given in conference? I believe that there were some false and harmful things said. I think that the harm should be corrected as much as possible, and criticizing the harmful words is one way to go about that. But, I also want people to critically analyze their own beliefs. I want Mormons to take a step back from their beliefs and look at them one by one and critique them. Decide whether they are valid, true, and good beliefs to have. I don't want to offend all the Mormons who read my blog and chase them away, leaving only ex-Mormon choir members to preach to.
Something is awry in my approach. I'm not having the effect I want to have. So, I think that I need to change my line of attack. I'm just not entirely sure how to go about it. I've actually received some very useful feedback from the conversation with my sister. I ask for any feedback any of my readers have.
My sister has suggested that I include things that are good about the LDS church along with any criticism I have. I thought that I had been doing that, but I suppose I haven't been doing as well as I thought. I want to be objective and I thought that I had been.
My brother suggested that I avoid using words like "bigot" when describing people who don't support marriage equality. I'm torn there. I can see the wisdom in avoiding words like that, because it is a polarizing word and drives off anyone with a differing viewpoint. But at the same time, I think it is an accurate word to describe someone who thinks that they deserve to have privileges that they wish to deny to gay people.
I get worked up about something--perhaps something a Mormon leader says, or something that a politician says or whatever--and I want to tell everyone about it. I want people to understand my position. I want people to agree with my position. I want to be right. I want the truth to be known. I want a lot of things. But I need to stop for a minute and think about what effect my writing has on people who read it and whether that's what I really want to be doing.
There are so many ideas floating around out there and so many of them seem wise to me. Some people, like Richard Dawkins, say that you should just say what is true regardless of whether it hurts people's feelings. He's not ashamed to talk about how ridiculous religion is and how silly people are for believing in it. There are people who say that it is best to be kind and to put the feelings of others above proving them wrong. I think both ideas are right and good. I think that it's important to stand up for what is true and I think it's important to consider others' feelings when interacting with them.
There're people like Penn Jillette and Ron Paul who are libertarians and say that the government should be limited to maximize the freedoms people enjoy and that charity is voluntary, so government programs for the poor can't be considered charitable since they're mandatory. There are people like Obama and Bill Gates who say that we should have social programs to help people who are in need, that high taxes are justified because those who have much should give some of their excess to those who have little. I agree with both of these ideas. I think it's important to have restraints on the government and I think that many of the social programs we have do much good.
So, why do I post? What is the purpose I wish to accomplish? I don't know. Perhaps my primary goal is that of equality. I think that all people should be treated equal and should be granted equal protection under the law. So, I want the words I say to have the effect of convincing people to vote for equality. And, I do specifically mean marriage equality, but all other kinds of equality as well. I think gay people should be treated equal by being allowed to marry. I think transexuals should be treated equal by allowing them to live their life as the gender of their choice--that, for example a person born male who transitions to female should be treated as any other female in society. I think it's hateful and hurtful when people make comments about transexuals being abominable or unnatural. I think that women should be treated equally by being paid the same as a man with comparable qualifications, that they should not be treated as sex objects, and that their personal space should not be invaded by sexual harassment.
Another goal (which may also be my primary one, making equality secondary, I don't know) is to share truth. I want everything I say to be correct. Whenever I say something wrong, I want it to be corrected. If what I say comes out wrong or is demonstrably false, then I'm doing it wrong. I mean to be accurate in all of my words. I want to represent reality as accurately as possible. But more than that, I want people to believe the things that I say. Even if the things that I say are true, if no one reads them because I present them poorly (perhaps I am too angry or too focused on one particular issue, perhaps I am too offensive or condescending) then I am missing my mark. I want to be accurate but also to be accessible. I want people to feel that I respect differing viewpoints even if I don't accept them. And I don't want to present myself as an absolute authority on any issue, because I'm not and everyone knows it.
One thing that has been making me introspective in this way is a conversation I'm having with my sister. If I am honest with myself and look at the consequences of my blog posts over the last two years, I can see that one of the main effects that it has had is polarization. Those who believe in the LDS church have stopped reading my blog (aside from a small handful). They have written me off as someone who is bitter toward the church--the stereotypical "apostate" who "can leave the church but can't leave the church alone". In effect, all it has done is cement their view that they are correct--that their church is true and that what their church says about those who disagree with it is also true. And those who agree with me stay here and appreciate what I write because it aligns with their own views. I don't want this to happen. This is not an effect that I want (yes, I do want like-minded people reading my blog, and even commenting and telling me they agree to be sure).
I want to convince Mormons that their church is false. Not because I hate the church or because I'm bitter or anything else, but because I honestly believe that it is a false church. I believe that it is a fraud. And I believe that it takes advantage of its members. Clearly I'm not doing it right because (as far as I know) I haven't convinced anyone and I've driven off all of the people that I've wanted to convince.
So, before I finish writing all my posts about General Conference, I want to make sure that I'm doing what I mean to be doing. Do I want to criticize the talks given in conference? I believe that there were some false and harmful things said. I think that the harm should be corrected as much as possible, and criticizing the harmful words is one way to go about that. But, I also want people to critically analyze their own beliefs. I want Mormons to take a step back from their beliefs and look at them one by one and critique them. Decide whether they are valid, true, and good beliefs to have. I don't want to offend all the Mormons who read my blog and chase them away, leaving only ex-Mormon choir members to preach to.
Something is awry in my approach. I'm not having the effect I want to have. So, I think that I need to change my line of attack. I'm just not entirely sure how to go about it. I've actually received some very useful feedback from the conversation with my sister. I ask for any feedback any of my readers have.
My sister has suggested that I include things that are good about the LDS church along with any criticism I have. I thought that I had been doing that, but I suppose I haven't been doing as well as I thought. I want to be objective and I thought that I had been.
My brother suggested that I avoid using words like "bigot" when describing people who don't support marriage equality. I'm torn there. I can see the wisdom in avoiding words like that, because it is a polarizing word and drives off anyone with a differing viewpoint. But at the same time, I think it is an accurate word to describe someone who thinks that they deserve to have privileges that they wish to deny to gay people.
My opinion: You have every right to write how you feel and your opinion. However, saying someone is silly for what they believe in is not the way to make people listen to what you have to say. People are not going to listen to what you have to say if you are telling them that you are right and what they believe is "silly". If you were to present your opinion in a respectful way instead of telling people they are silly, or brainwashed, people would respect your opinion more. When you first came out and started posting I felt you were more respectful than you are now, and I enjoyed reading what you posted much more. Now, I almost always find something in what you post that causes me offense. I believe what I believe to be right, just as you believe to be right. That does not mean that I am right, and that does not mean that you are right. I believe trying to shove what you believe on another person is not the way to go about things. You said "I want to convince Mormons that their church is false." Why not just post what you feel without trying to convince someone that they are wrong? That is what is causing people in your family to block you and be offended. You said " I want people to feel that I respect differing viewpoints even if I don't accept them." If you want people to feel like you respect your beliefs you should avoid calling people silly, telling them they are wrong, telling them they have been brainwashed, or using other such offensive terms. When I talk to people who do not share the same beliefs as me I avoid saying anything about my beliefs being right and their belief being wrong. I say "well I believe in this.." not "God is real and I am right and you are wrong." Because the thing about a belief is you don't know if you are right or wrong. You cannot prove to me that God does not exist and I cannot prove to you that God does exist. I quite enjoy having discussions with people whose opinions differ from my own. But most people I have spoken with are very respectful of what I believe. If you were to go from trying to convince everyone of what you believe to just expressing yourself in a respectful way, I think more people would want to listen to what you have to say.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing. I was actually not expecting any feedback, since it happens so rarely.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to critique your comment. I hope you don't feel that I'm attacking it, or you, but I do want to respond analytically.
I do agree with you about calling people names. Saying that a person is silly seems like going too far to me. I think I'm starting to distance myself a little bit from the Dawkins approach. I may still say that certain beliefs are silly or foolish, since I mean to be honest and frank about what I believe, but to call a person silly for believing something silly seems a bit too extreme (and I believe I've hit on this particular point in the past).
I don't know how I feel about the "brainwashed" part of your argument. On the one hand, I do see that people are understandably affronted by someone telling them that they're brainwashed--whether they are brainwashed or not, no one wants to be told that. Perhaps it would be best to avoid using the word altogether. I'm not sure. That's actually part of the reason why I made this post, and I do hope that you respond to this analysis and let me know what you think. What I may do is avoid saying that any particular person (or group of people) are actually brainwashed, but still claim to believe (as I do) that certain organizations, such as the LDS church and the Church of Scientology, do brainwash their members. To me the key difference is that the latter claim doesn't necessarily mean that all members are brainwashed, only that the organization makes efforts to brainwash them. I see your point, though, that even using the word at all is likely to turn Mormons away. My dilemma is that I really do believe that the LDS church is guilty of brainwashing its members, and I think that anytime any organization uses mind control techniques, they should be exposed for doing so since it is immoral, unethical, and (I hope) illegal.
Certainly I do have the right to say whatever I like. But I don't want to say things simply because I have the right to say them. I do see wisdom in refraining from saying things that will be inflammatory or sensational simply for the reaction. I also see wisdom in being diplomatic in the way things are worded and possibly not giving a complete and full disclosure when it may offend someone. That having been said, I think that I should not be afraid to offend people. If I never say anything that I think will offend someone, I won't be sharing very much on my blog.
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, I have not had access to the internet in a while. I have not yet decided if I am going to tell you who I am or not, the first anonymous comment I actually thought I had posted as myself.. but since it ended up being anonymous I might stay that way. One reason is I think if you were to know who I am it could influence the way you choose to respond. As it is, you do not know if I am Mormon, Catholic, Buddhist, Atheist, etc and I think that can make for a more open conversation. I want to start by touching on this question " Why do you feel like me wanting to convince people that their beliefs are false causes them to be offended?" Let me ask you this question to respond to that. Why do you feel offended (as I am sure you do) when people try to convince you that you being gay is immoral, false, a choice, and any other things that people say? Because it is who you are, and it is what you believe. There are many times when I have read your posts that insinuate that Mormons and other religious people are not good people for what they believe in. Now, I know you don't think that, however many things you say seem to have that undertone. I would say that is the reason that people are offended. (side note, I am having a really hard time unscrambling all my thoughts right now so excuse me if this is kind of jumbled). You mentioned Mormon missionaries. I think that many times, missionaries can be very offensive to people, and other times not. It really depends on the way they approach people. I have known missionaries who take the "my church is right and you are going to hell" approach and I have known missionaries who have taken the approach of "hey this is what I believe if you would like to listen to what I have to say". Which approach do you think would be more effective? People just want other people to believe what they believe. I don't know anyone who doesn't. So you saying you want to convince people their religion is wrong is no surprise to me, I just think your approach is not helping your cause. I don't think you are going to the Telestial Kingdom nor am I concerned with the well-being of your eternal soul. I think you are a good person who just needs to be a little more tolerant. I know there are people who are extremely intolerant of what you believe, but that doesn't mean you have to be the same. We are human and I think it is beautiful that we all have our own beliefs. I also think sharing those beliefs are beautiful, when you are being respectful. It is extremely hard to be diplomatic when having a discussion with someone, especially when someone is being disrespectful of you and what you believe in. I am not you, so I don't know how you personally can do this. What I do when I start a discussion that could end in an argument I say something such as "I listened to what you have to say, and I will definitely have to take some time to think it over. I respect what you believe, but here is what I believe on this subject." I have always done this and I have never had a religious, or political discussion that has resulted in offense or an argument. I have also had my mind changed once I have listened to and thought about what the person I was discussing had to say. I find if is an effective technique. Also maybe if you didn't look at things as an argument to win, or a person to convince, then you might find a better way to communicate more fully.
Delete"Why do you feel offended (as I am sure you do) when people try to convince you that you being gay is immoral, false, a choice, and any other things that people say?" I'm not offended by that. If a friend thinks that I'm doing something immoral, I would want them to let me know. I even said this on a couple different occasions to my parents--in particular my father. I'm not offended if someone tells me something they sincerely believe will benefit me. I don't believe them. I don't agree that being gay is immoral--or that having gay sex is immoral--but I'm not offended when they tell me that they believe that.
Delete"There are many times when I have read your posts that insinuate that Mormons and other religious people are not good people for what they believe in." Yes, I've noticed that. I want to be more articulate so that it doesn't come across that way. That's why I made this post. I'm actually not sure how much I want to focus on religion anymore. It seems to me as though it isn't doing any good, since it is often interpreted in the way you describe and that's not what I mean to do. I'm glad that you've told me this. And I'm sorry that I've come across that way.
"Which approach do you think would be more effective?" Clearly the latter. But the point is that in either case, the missionary is attempting to convince the investigator that they are wrong and the Mormon church is right. That's the only reason the church has missionaries.
"I think you are a good person who just needs to be a little more tolerant." I am very interested in knowing specifically how you feel that I am intolerant and how I could be more tolerant.
"Also maybe if you didn't look at things as an argument to win, or a person to convince, then you might find a better way to communicate more fully." This is something I need to do.
(part 2) I am sorry that nearly all of my posts offend you. I really am. I don't mean to offend anyone in any of my posts. I will acknowledge that some of the things I say can easily be offensive, so I'm not saying that I'm surprised that you've been offended. I'm just saying that it is not my intent (nor has it ever been) to offend.
ReplyDeleteI do want to convince Mormons that their church is false, though. To say that I do not would be dishonest. On this matter, I agree with Penn Jilette, see this video He says that we can respect each other by telling each other that they are wrong. And I think this is entirely appropriate. One story that Mormons often relate is the story of Lehi eating the fruit of the tree of life. He eats it and it's so good that the first thing he wants to do is share it with his family. This is often cited in encouraging people to engage in missionary work. Mormons believe very strongly that they should share the gospel with all people in the world. I think this is a good thing. If you sincerely believe something is true, then I think you should share it. If you sincerely think that I'm going to the Telestial Kingdom or Outer Darkness because I've apostatized from the church, and you are sincerely concerned with the well-being of my eternal soul, then I think that you should try to reconvert me to your religion.
Similarly, I think that the Mormon religion is false and harmful, so I feel that I have a moral obligation to let people know about it so they can make educated decisions about it. Now, when I say I want to convince Mormons that their church is false (I actually mean all religious people, not just Mormons, but I know the most about the Mormon faith, so I focus on that one), I don't mean that I want to coerce people into disbelief, merely that I wish to persuade them. In fact, I think that anyone who is honest with themselves will admit that the only reason they want to share their opinions with others is to persuade other people to believe the way they do. And I think that's the way people should be. If you think something is true or good, you should share it with others. This is how progress is made.
I can't prove that no gods exist, but I don't claim to know and I also don't claim that such proof is possible. My point isn't that I can disprove the existence of any deity, but that I have not yet seen any convincing evidence that there are any gods. If anyone has evidence that they believe proves the existence of a god, then I would quite interested in hearing it. And I'm talking about real evidence, not the same tired old arguments that people have made about how all of the beautiful things in nature and the complexity of the human body prove god exists because that's a non-sequitur.
So, I am curious. Why do you feel like me wanting to convince people that their beliefs are false causes them to be offended? Because I know for a fact that nearly all Mormons believe that missionary work is a good thing, and missionary work is nothing other than what I wish to do--to convince other people that what I believe is actually the truth. Please elaborate on why you think that this approach is offensive when Mormons themselves practice it.
(part 3) And this is the dilemma. How much do I want to champion the truth and how much do I want to be diplomatic? I wish I could do both 100%, but I'm not sure how or if that's even possible.
ReplyDeleteMy past arguments with people have always left me realizing that more than anything, I want people to feel loved. I can handle being wrong, I can handle dropping an argument even if I "know" that I'm right, if I see that I'm hurting the person I'm fighting with. Okay, I should rephrase that, I am not very good at being wrong or dropping an argument, but I would like to be. I want to be able to put a person's feelings first because every time I push an argument so far that the other person's feelings are seriously hurt, I feel bad about it and realize that's not what I wanted to accomplish.
At the same time, I can't feel good about remaining silent on something that I feel is a serious problem in society--I am by nature very passionate and an activist. If I see something wherein society could improve, I push for that improvement. Perhaps I push too hard--that's what I've been wondering about, and that's where I'd like feedback.
I understand your point that no one likes to be told "You're wrong and I'm right". I need to stop saying that. I'll try to stop saying that. And, I do really want you to reply. My last two comments shouldn't be interpreted as "I'm right and you're wrong", but merely as the other side of the coin that you presented.
Perhaps what I should ask myself before I post something is "Will this help people or hurt them?" That's hard for me to foresee sometimes, but it could be a good rubric. No matter how true something is, if all it will do is offend people, then what is the good in saying it? (This is actually a non-rhetorical question. If anyone can think of any reasons for doing so, I'm open to hearing and discussing them.)
Keith, (Please forgive any mispelling)
ReplyDeleteI'll be honest and say I don't read all you writing. When I can, I'll read what you have to say. Sometime I enjoy what you post, other time I pass it up, sometimes I never see it. My grandmother McCain once told me, after hearing a heated debate between her and my grandfather, don't arguee politices or religon. Both are personal. She then took me to see JFK at the train station. She always respectful people's thoughts and was open mined enough to listen and have enqusitive disscussion. I've tried to live what she taught me so early in life. Before I left for school my Seminary teacher told me "You don't always have to be right, even if you are." Those words of advice have come into play more than I would have ever thought. Is the relationship more important or being right. Usually the person will find out I was right repects the fact I didn't rub it in or point it out at the wrong time. Relationships are what's really important. Our love and care are what will mean the most to others.
My 2 cents.
I'm actually surprised that you read my blog. I didn't think that you did. I think you have a very good point here, and that's why I'm trying to reconsider my approach. Thank you for sharing.
DeleteI'm glad you mentioned Richard Dawkins since he is a microcosm of what you are doing "wrong". Scientists learn they need to build models that can explain basic facts about reality. Models that can't are bad models and should be easily dismissed.
ReplyDeleteGo read what Richard Dawkins said about Romney during the debate. He tries to paint Romney as a "barking mad" fool. If Romney was a barking mad fool this doesn't explain how Romney got accepted to the law and business schools of Harvard, attended both simultaneously and graduated above average pulling off this feat. It doesn't explain how he took a new company that was struggling at first and turn it in a pinnacle on Wall Street. It doesn't explain how he became a governor, was asked to run an Olympics and became the first nominee of a major political party.
*You* say Dawkins is intent on telling truth no metter how hard it hurts. Well, his "truth" and overly simplistic one-dimensional cannot begin to explain basic facts about Romney. There are millions of fools in this world and hardly any will accomplish *one* thing on Romney's list. Romney accomplished them all. No matter how hard to try to spin it, Dawkins puts overly-simplistic one-dimensional stigmas on religious people that fail to explain basic facts about them and calls the truth.
And again, given how important model building is that supports facts it is funny to see Dawkins do this. And yet he does and his fanboys are so narrow minded they can't see it.
Now back to this blog. This Church is far greater then the overly-simplistic one-dimensional stereotype you give it. You treat it like Dawkins' treats Romney. The Church is just a cult with leaders manipulating and brainwashing us poor souls who can't see past the ends of our nose. These descriptions can no more explain what the Church is and has become in the ives of millions then "barking mad" fool explains Romney's success at two simultaneous Harvard graduate degrees, building a pinnacle on Wall Street from the ground up, olympics, governor, etc...
But I realize you can't see it. You have become like Dawkins. You support models that can't explain basic facts to any impartial observer, brand these overly-simplistic models as truth hard to bear, and wonder why only anti-Mormon fanboys stick around. Weak-sauce models of an organization not only is bad science but normal people usually shun them. Only the fanboys stay in such circumstances. (Or people like me who have always through you were a great guy. I don't choose friends based on whether their models of reality are bone-headed.)
Anyways, interesting post.
Wow. That was harsh.
DeleteI suppose I should restate what I said about Dawkins. I meant to say that he is not afraid to hurt people's feelings in stating what he believes to be truth. I probably should say something more along the line of that he is not afraid of hurting people's feelings, and at times seems to go out of his way to hurt people's feelings. Now this is something that I wish to avoid.
I'm sorry, Joe, but I see a great deal of irony in your assessment of my blog. You seem to accuse me of being overly simplistic in my analysis of the LDS church and yet that analysis itself seems to be rather one-dimensional and overly simplistic. This is part of my dilemma. I feel like I go well out of my way to make concessions for Mormons but that they aren't appreciated.
In my post entitled "The holes in my heart", I go into detail about how I feel that the church has been a big part of my life and shaping me into who I am today, that it was very painful when I came to realize it wasn't true, and explained precisely why I believed that experience to be painful. I don't think that's a one-dimensional model of the church. Perhaps a little simplistic, but I don't believe it's overly simplistic (one needs some simplification to avoid making a several hundred page post about any organization).
On my post about sacred secrets, I felt that I went into great detail explaining how Mormons feel about the temple, and I linked to official church resources. The video itself is the actual footage of the temple endowment ceremony. I believe this to be quite an accurate model of the church, not overly simplistic, one-dimension or stereotypical. Did you find that it was lacking in substance and accuracy?
In my post "Why does religion work?" I discussed key points of many religions that Mormonism has as well. I believe that I gave valid reasons why these seemed to be recurring themes in religion. I don't think that this was one-dimensional.
In my post entitled "Idealogical Isolation", one major part of the post was dedicated to trying to clear up ambiguous statements that I had made in the past that were, as you say, one-dimensional or overly simplistic. In fact, I addressed the use of the word "brainwashing" in that post.
Granted, it was a parable and the meaning may not have been clear, but my post entitled "Joining the circus" certainly speaks of how the church can be beneficial to people. (It was specifically about being a student at BYU, but by extension the principle applies.)
I made a video entitled "Objectivity" and posted it here on my blog. In that video, I addressed this very concept. I admitted that the church isn't all bad.
I could go on and on. I beg you to just reread many of my posts and then come back and tell me whether you still think that your assessment of it is fair. I mean, what would you have me do, Joe? Short of never speaking any criticism of the church at all, how can I possibly live up to your standard, if you're convinced that the things I have said about the church have all been negative and have portrayed it the way you say I have portrayed it?
Personally, I am inclined to think that the bulk of the problem here is not how I present my feelings about the church but rather the propensity of members of the church to be offended whenever someone speaks critically of church leaders.
Also, I am curious how you feel about the Church of Scientology. How much do you know about it? Do you believe it to be a cult? Do you know how many members it has?
DeleteSorry for all the typos. They are many. The point is I encourage you to paint a picture of the Mormon Church that has some actual substance to explain what it has become to the lives of millions. Don't have the Dawkins' "I'm a scientist but fail to have the capacity to formulate models about religious people, like Romney, that can actually account for basic facts about their lives" syndrome. This blog can be a great case-study for that syndrome at times. But I still enjoy it none the less.
ReplyDeleteOr I will give another example for good measure to put things into greater focus. In the historian world the Oxford Press is probably the most prestigious academic in the world. It has published two books on the Book of Mormon recently *both* concluding if the Book of Mormon is not true it is still perhaps one of the most under-appreciated American literary works and spend an entire book explain why. Oxford Press is not alone. There have been many scholarly press's, with books written by non-Mormon scholars who have reached the same conclusion. In fact, I can't think of a book published in a prominent scholarly press that concludes otherwise. (Except Brodie's work which is now decades old.)
ReplyDeleteThis blog seems to take the Richard Dawkins claim that the book is an "obvious forgery" where only a fool can't see how stupid it is. This model again fails to explain the pattern that has emerged in the preeminent literature on the subject mentioned above. Again, it is interesting to see a scientist hold a modle that seems to contradict the peer review literature but he does. (I didn't say the peer reviewed literare says the book is true, it says if it isn't it is greatly undervalued. Dawkins remarks do not hint if not true must be undervalued.)
Anyways, this is another example. I am told by the pre-eminent scholars (including non-Mormons) in the world who actually publish in the most respected outlets that the Book of Mormon is either true or at less highly-undervalued. Then I hear Dawkins and read the blog and see the disconnect with the world's experts. So yes, I chuckle when people who hold such narrow-minded views of the Book of Mormon insinuate we are the un-studied idiots on the subject. :)
Again, Joe, I would ask you to find one place on this blog (or my other one that I don't maintain anymore) where I say anything close to what you're saying I've said about the Book of Mormon. I haven't. I don't see the benefit of it. I've claimed that the book is false, and from what you've told me (I haven't heard of these books you speak of, let alone read them, so I'll take your word for it), the Oxford Press agrees with me on that matter. I feel confident leaving it there. I have no need to claim that it's a juvenile publication.
DeleteIf you want to be critical of what I've said, please at least start with something that I've actually said, not a blatant misconstruction of it.
Last thing (and again I am not trying to attack you just you wanted to know how to get more then fanboys to show up.) This blog has many non-Mormon authors who will admit it and state reasons why they don't believe: http://www.withoutend.org/
ReplyDeleteAnd it generates a lot of traffic. Why? Not because they say Mormonism is true (they don't) or through them a bone. It is because they are able to comprehend Mormonism on a level that actually makes sense and describe it. They are able to given reasons beyond "brainwashing" that explains why millions value the Book of Mormon. Unlike Dawkins they have a reasonable understanding of Mormonism that is not overly-simplistic and one dimensional. And so they get more then fanboys. In fact, they attract many of the most prestigious Momon and non-Mormon minds who are interested in the Church.
They have something to contribute beyond overly-simplistic bantar that is very easy to see past if you know anything about Mormonism. They are well researched, use good logic, force themselves to build models that actually account for reality etc... It is hard work but they do it.
I realize like everything else you ask what can be done better and get offended when someone tries to tell it like it is. I am sorry. On one hand you want to be told like it is and on the other you don't want to be told you are wrong. You can't have it both ways. I love you Keith, but if you really want to know, you will listen. Otherwise, non-expert fanboys who want the Church to be as one dimensional and overly simplistic as you make it are the only people you are going to get. And telling you this doesn't mean I don't think highly of you. But it is the only way to answer your question honestly.
Can you honestly tell me that with all sincerity of heart you have given an objective analysis of my blog? Do you truly believe that you have been unbiased in your appraisal of my words? Do you feel that you have fairly and accurately represented what I have stated and shared?
DeleteYour an incessant blowhard, I just wish your insignificant existence hadn't come into my world.
Delete