An Understanding Of Apostates

[Guest Unorthodox]

Ok, ok, ok...I am not quitting the THREAD as I have a few things to say...although I have still quit the DEBATE :)

So, it would seem that many of us have sensitive [sacred] issues which we wish left undisturbed. I think it would be important for us to look at our approach on things and not attack the messenger. If we choose not to believe certain information shared in this forum, that's ok. But to become easily offended and attack someone who may have had good intentions initially for presenting the information is hurtful and unnecessary. Cruelty is never warranted under any circumstance. I think the problem herein lies in the fact that we don't know one another well enough to judge one's heart. Communication is the key! Thanks for listening, and no offense intended.

- Mrs. A

I completely agree with this statement.

Thank you for pointing this out Aristotle.

The whole point of Unorthodox’s posts was that if the LDS church truly wants to prepare its members to defend their faith then do so in church settings like SS and Seminary classes and use the research that FAIR and FARMS has already provided to help teach about anti-Mormon material. He never said anything about let the members read the anti-Mormon material and then let them fend for themselves. If you are a fair person Syble you could re-read his posts and see that for yourself. But obviously you are of the mind that to defend ones faith against “anti” material with Church back-up is such a bad idea, that is just easier to attack the unbeliever who presented the idea instead of giving it some thought to its merits.

That was exactly what I was trying to say, and I apologize if I was not clear.

[Aristotle]

I completely agree with this statement.

Thank you for pointing this out Aristotle.

You're welcome, Unorthodox. :-)

[Guest Unorthodox]

Heh, why do some people seem to have so much trouble understanding what I am saying?

I meant that members of the Church should not focus their attention on slanderous information from people who publish anti-Mormon information, because there are truthful sources of information which are published by people who know the truth, without the slanderous viewpoints!

Or in other words, I have learned more about the Church and the gospel by studying the Church and the gospel from the sources in the Church, than I ever would have learned by reading all the slanderous information out there about the Church and the gospel from people who make “slanderous” statements, and by having obtained so much more information about the Church and the gospel from the sources in the Church, I can detect the errors in slanderous information when I see it… by a better understanding of the truth.

For instance, instead of reading about how “Mormons” are not “Christians”, I have learned more about how “Mormons” truly are “Christians” by reading the information from sources in the Church, including myself, than I ever would have learned by reading all of the information out there about how “Mormons” are not “Christians”, and by knowing what I know I can also detect the “slander” when I see it.

Or in other words, when we want to know the truth about anything, we should all try to go to the source… so when we want to know about God, we should try to go to Him and not Satan.

I think there really are two ways to look at this, Ray.

A. LDS can prepare themselves intellectually, through study, for lesser known controversial information to surface, and then deal with it using their experience with apologetics.

B. LDS can pray about these issues and recieve answers from God, as Ray has suggested.

By controversial information, I am talking about 2 things:

1. Anti-Mormon lies. For example, "Mormons are not Christians because the Bible says (insert your interpretation of the Bible here)". These are lies or interpretations that can easily be discredited.

2. Controversial issues that might be true facts, such as "Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in secrecy before his revelation was given to him"...which have been re-examined and explained in a faith-promoting way.

Perhaps only the alleged "facts" (#2 issues) could be openly discussed, since, as you said, the lies really are irrelevant to your faith.

As I said, I am quitting this debate, and will no longer try to convince you that my ideas would be in the interests of the LDS.

However, as I mentioned yesterday, you might want to consider that my ideas may already be in practice.

Consider increased Internet usage and the latest trends we are seeing where LDS historians actually are starting to confront controversial issues in "mainstream" LDS books, such as Rough Stone Rolling...not just in Universities. LDS writers may already be doing this preventative "innoculation", and this trend may continue to grow despite your opposition to it.

However, your opposition might be valid, if you think that prayer and personal revelation can effectively deal with these matters without the use of apologetics.

[Maureen]

Heh, why do some people seem to have so much trouble understanding what I am saying?

To be honest Ray, you are not always the best communicator.

I meant that members of the Church should not focus their attention on slanderous information from people who publish anti-Mormon information, because there are truthful sources of information which are published by people who know the truth, without the slanderous viewpoints!

Yes but, how does a member know if certain information is slanderous or truthful if they don't take the time to investigate it.

...I have learned more about the Church and the gospel by studying the Church and the gospel from the sources in the Church, than I ever would have learned by reading all the slanderous information out there about the Church and the gospel from people who make “slanderous” statements, and by having obtained so much more information about the Church and the gospel from the sources in the Church

And I wouldn't be surprised Ray if some of those Church sources you are reading, are written with the intent to counter slanderous information that does exist.

...I can detect the errors in slanderous information when I see it…by a better understanding of the truth.

And have you had this detection ability from day one of your LDS membership or was it something you had to learn? You must remember Ray that your church is filled with new members and seasoned members everyone learns their own way at their own pace. Learning is not a magic pill, it takes time.

For instance, instead of reading about how “Mormons” are not “Christians”, I have learned more about how “Mormons” truly are “Christians” by reading the information from sources in the Church, including myself, than I ever would have learned by reading all of the information out there about how “Mormons” are not “Christians”, and by knowing what I know I can also detect the “slander” when I see it.

But these articles written by Church sources to validated why LDS are Christians are usually to counter the argument from others that believe LDS are not Christian.

M.

[Ray]

Unorthodox,

What did I ever say that gave you the idea that I have some kind of problem with “apologetics”… aside from the name, because I don’t like the idea that it might be associated with the offering of some kind of “apology”.

I have been simply trying to state that there is no need to look at “slanderous” information about the Church, which comes from people who do not truly state or represent what the Church truly is or what we (the Church) is teaching… or has taught in the past.

Or in other words, if you really want to know what the Church really is, or what the Church really teaches, or what the Church has really taught in the past, you should study the information that comes or has come from the Church instead of relying on what other people say or have said.

And the same goes for trying to understand God too, or anything else in life.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I’ll give one more example, and then I’m done with this.

If you really want to know me, you should ask me about who I am, and what I think, and what I have thought in the past, and what I am doing and have done in the past. And if, during that process, you hear from some other people who claim to know me, or who claim to know what I have said, or what I have thought, or what I am doing or have done in the past, you should then come to me and ask me if what those other people have said is true, with the understanding that it is at least possible that what other people are saying about me does not truly reflect the person I am or have been in the past, either because other people simply do not understand me or because they are intentionally trying to say something about me which is not true for their own reasons.

Does that make any sense at all to you?

In other words, when you can go to the source, why would you want to go anywhere else?

[Guest Unorthodox]

Unorthodox,

What did I ever say that gave you the idea that I have some kind of problem with “apologetics”… aside from the name, because I don’t like the idea that it might be associated with the offering of some kind of “apology”.

I agree the word apologetics has a negative connotation to it in the English language, however it is traditional to call such works "apologetic" ever since the time of Plato and Socrates. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning "defense of a position against an attack".

Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that you were opposed to apologetics. I was saying that you seemed opposed to the idea of actively teaching apologetics and the controversial issues that they deal with in LDS books, teaching manuals, seminary classes, etc.

You appear to be saying that we should leave things as they are...where people can stumble on controversial information on the Internet or non-LDS bookstores, and then they can then pray about it, or if they know about FAIR/FARMS, they can look up the apologetic answers they need. That is how things are now.

In other words, when you can go to the source, why would you want to go anywhere else?

I agree.

And I think much of the controversial information that has some basis in fact is in the source. For example, alot of the "anti" claims are based on things read in the Journal of Discourses. Obviously, the average LDS has not read the JoD. However with the Internet, quotes from the JoD are found everywhere, and used in an anti-Mormon context. As these quotes become more commonly available to the average Church member, I expect that people like FAIR will step up and publish their explanations for why certain controversial things were said in official Church documents such as the JoD...they will then give the proper context...they will explain when a Prophet said something "as a man" and when he said something that was inspired by revelation. The result will be, hopefully, that the average LDS person will read the controversial quotes by their prophets within the apologetic context, rather than the anti context.

Originally I was thinking it would be a good idea to actively teach the controversies (but only the ones that have some sort of factual basis...not the lies) and the apologetic information...basically what FAIR does, by putting the information in the standard teaching manuals, or perhaps in more books that could be found in LDS bookstores and mainstream bookstores.

I have changed my mind about that...I now believe this trend is already happening...that there are new books being published by LDS people and sold where fine LDS books are sold, including Deseret, BYU bookstore, and non-LDS stores. As I mentioned several times already, Rough Stone Rolling is a good example of this, but only the tip of the iceberg.

So I am not suggesting things change.

I am now saying that things are already changing.

[Ray]

Unorthodox,

Do you realize that the information I’m giving and am continuing to give you and other people on this thread on the internet can also be considered as “apologetic” information?

You seem to think “apologetic” and “anti” information come only from other people who say what they say, either by speaking or writing their words, without realizing the fact that you and I and all other people are contributing to all the information that is available.

And while I have absolutely no problem with reading information from others, or with providing some information myself, I have said and will continue to say that the best thing any of us can do is to pray to God for the help we need to be able to know the truth.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Unorthodox,

Do you realize that the information I’m giving and am continuing to give you and other people on this thread on the internet can also be considered as “apologetic” information?

Yes, of course it is. I don't think FAIR or FARMS has a monopoly on apologetics.

I have said and will continue to say that the best thing any of us can do is to pray to God for the help we need to be able to know the truth.

And I agreed with you, two posts ago, when I said LDS have two options when dealing with controverial information...

A. LDS can prepare themselves intellectually, through study, for lesser known controversial information to surface, and then deal with it using their experience with apologetics.

B. LDS can pray about these issues and recieve answers from God, as Ray has suggested.

I will even acknowledge that if the LDS church is really true, then Option B...prayer...is more effective than Option A.

Regardless of what is true, I believe, as I mentioned in my last post, that Option A is already a work in progress.

You may not agree with that...and if not, there is nothing to do but wait and see if apologetic literature becomes mainstream church material, or if it remains an academic project, confined to the "Internet Mormons" and University research.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Unorthodox,

Do you realize that the information I’m giving and am continuing to give you and other people on this thread on the internet can also be considered as “apologetic” information?

Yes, of course it is. I don't think FAIR or FARMS has a monopoly on apologetics.

I have said and will continue to say that the best thing any of us can do is to pray to God for the help we need to be able to know the truth.

And I agreed with you, two posts ago, when I said LDS have two options when dealing with controverial information...

A. LDS can prepare themselves intellectually, through study, for lesser known controversial information to surface, and then deal with it using their experience with apologetics.

B. LDS can pray about these issues and recieve answers from God, as Ray has suggested.

I will even acknowledge that if the LDS church is really true, then Option B...prayer...is more effective than Option A.

Regardless of what is true, I believe, as I mentioned in my last post, that Option A is already a work in progress.

You may not agree with that...and if not, there is nothing to do but wait and see if apologetic literature becomes mainstream church material, or if it remains an academic project, confined to the "Internet Mormons" and University research.

You seem to have missed my point, because "Internet Mormons" and "University research" gatherers are not the only people who contribute to all the information out there which is either for or against the Church, or God, or anything else in life.

Or in other words, the things that YOU say can have just as much of an impact on others as the things written or said by others who also say things either for or against the Church, or God, or the gospel, or anything else people talk about, so I hope you will try to be considerate of that fact the next time you want to say something.

[Guest Unorthodox]

You seem to have missed my point, because "Internet Mormons" and "University research" gatherers are not the only people who contribute to all the information out there which is either for or against the Church, or God, or anything else in life.

It is true that anti-Mormons are found outside the Internet, especially in other Churches, or as authors of books.

Apologetics that answer the really tough issues, on the other hand, seem to be mainly found on the Internet at places such as FAIR, or in Universities, in papers written by FARMS. By "Internet Mormons", I also include people like you who discuss these issues on message boards. Beyond that, I don't see alot of apologetics going on in LDS chapels.

That is all I meant.

Or in other words, the things that YOU say can have just as much of an impact on others as the things written or said by others who also say things either for or against the Church, or God, or the gospel, or anything else people talk about, so I hope you will try to be considerate of that fact the next time you want to say something.

So you would prefer sugar-coated discussions after all?

Very well...prepare to read some very faith-promoting posts

[Maureen]

Or in other words, the things that YOU say can have just as much of an impact on others as the things written or said by others who also say things either for or against the Church, or God, or the gospel, or anything else people talk about, so I hope you will try to be considerate of that fact the next time you want to say something.

What? Ray, are you implying that Unorthodox has been inconsiderate with his posts? If so, you're crazy Ray.

I'm getting the feeling you may understand Unorthodox's opinions after all and you just can't find it in yourself to say that he has a good point and his opinions are valid. And since you just can't do that you're going in circles trying to say something crazy over and over again, because I have no idea what you're talking about Ray.

It's time to let this poor thread have a rest.

M.

[Guest Unorthodox]

It's ok Maureen. If he wants sugar-coated, I'll give him sugar-coated.

[Aristotle]

I think I've lost the plot.

It's interesting, the topic "Replying to An Understanding Of Apostates"...just how much of an understanding do apostates have about the LDS Church? And what is that understanding? That the LDS Church is untrue? If they believe themselves to be correct, and LDS to be incorrect, why not just let it lie and each go their own way and not try to convince the other otherwise?

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

Or in other words, the things that YOU say can have just as much of an impact on others as the things written or said by others who also say things either for or against the Church, or God, or the gospel, or anything else people talk about, so I hope you will try to be considerate of that fact the next time you want to say something.

What? Ray, are you implying that Unorthodox has been inconsiderate with his posts? If so, you're crazy Ray.

I'm getting the feeling you may understand Unorthodox's opinions after all and you just can't find it in yourself to say that he has a good point and his opinions are valid. And since you just can't do that you're going in circles trying to say something crazy over and over again, because I have no idea what you're talking about Ray.

It's time to let this poor thread have a rest.

M.

I have been watching your performance lately Maureen. You are a hit and run kind of person, coming into two other posters interactions and taking sides with one of them and yacking the other one down. LOL It is hillarious. What are you a judge in Israel or something?

I think I've lost the plot.

It's interesting, the topic "Replying to An Understanding Of Apostates"...just how much of an understanding do apostates have about the LDS Church? And what is that understanding? That the LDS Church is untrue? If they believe themselves to be correct, and LDS to be incorrect, why not just let it lie and each go their own way and not try to convince the other otherwise?

EXcellent questions!

[Guest Unorthodox]

I think I've lost the plot.

It's interesting, the topic "Replying to An Understanding Of Apostates"...just how much of an understanding do apostates have about the LDS Church? And what is that understanding? That the LDS Church is untrue? If they believe themselves to be correct, and LDS to be incorrect, why not just let it lie and each go their own way and not try to convince the other otherwise?

Well I originally responded to this thread because I thought that the characterization of Apostates was incomplete as it appeared to label them as immoral...not allowing for the many apostates who were just skeptics.

But now I see I must have been wrong

...because by bringing that up I was being inconsiderate to people who know the Church is true, and therefore know that apostates are actually immoral as shown by their refusal to obey the first commandment...belief in Yahweh.

I have been watching your performance lately Maureen. You are a hit and run kind of person, coming into two other posters interactions and taking sides with one of them and yacking the other one down. LOL It is hillarious. What are you a judge in Israel or something?

Maureen is a great person for defending me.

But you are also a great person for making me aware of my faults.

[Aristotle]

This is the definition of "apostate": Someone who abandons his religious faith (or party, etc) for another;

I don't see the word "immoral" mentioned. I do believe that if one has truly abandoned their faith, they would give it up, be over and done with it, and not work so hard (many with a contentious spirit) to lead others away or convince believers not to believe. It's just a matter of respect and letting go, in my estimation.

[Guest Unorthodox]

This is the definition of "apostate": Someone who abandons his religious faith (or party, etc) for another;

I don't see the word "immoral" mentioned. I do believe that if one has truly abandoned their faith, they would give it up, be over and done with it, and not work so hard (many with a contentious spirit) to lead others away or convince believers not to believe. It's just a matter of respect and letting go, in my estimation.

That is very true. When someone knows the LDS Church is true, it is best to agree with them.

[Guest Syble]

Maureen is a great person for defending me.

But you are also a great person for making me aware of my faults.

My main concern and efforts are towards evening the playing field for the LDS. It has appeared to me over the years that they have been wrongly fully expected to take care of the world while the world was clawing them to death. That just isn't the way the Lord wants to see it played.

Thank you for your show of humility. It might just help me be a little nicer to you ~ provided you don't make me yank on you again.

[Aristotle]

That is very true. When someone knows the LDS Church is true, it is best to agree with them.

So when would you like to be baptised, Brother Unorthodox? LOL

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

That is very true. When someone knows the LDS Church is true, it is best to agree with them.

So when would you like to be baptised, Brother Unorthodox? LOL

He was baptised last year, or has it been two years ago. I can't remember any more. He abandoned the church ~ according to your definition of apostate.

[Jason]

Syble,

So who are you babe? Obviously you've got a "new name" .

[Guest Syble]

Syble,

So who are you babe? Obviously you've got a "new name" .

You call me babe and don't even know???

Think real hard boy!~

[Aristotle]

He was baptised last year, or has it been two years ago. I can't remember any more. He abandoned the church ~ according to your definition of apostate.

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that.

Syble,

So who are you babe? Obviously you've got a "new name" .

Jason has a new avatar..."G", for "Grumpy". LOL

[Maureen]

I have been watching your performance lately Maureen. You are a hit and run kind of person, coming into two other posters interactions and taking sides with one of them and yacking the other one down. LOL It is hillarious. What are you a judge in Israel or something?

A hit and run kind of person usually appears once and never comes back. I like to check out many topics more than once.

And what's wrong with taking sides if certain posters are not playing fair. If you actually made the effort to be fair and understand other people's point of view Syble you wouldn't be so quick to judge others as your enemy. Do you teach your children that all non-LDS are evil and you must not associated with them - are you from the old school?

M.

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

I have been watching your performance lately Maureen. You are a hit and run kind of person, coming into two other posters interactions and taking sides with one of them and yacking the other one down. LOL It is hillarious. What are you a judge in Israel or something?

A hit and run kind of person usually appears once and never comes back. I like to check out many topics more than once.

And what's wrong with taking sides if certain posters are not playing fair. If you actually made the effort to be fair and understand other people's point of view Syble you wouldn't be so quick to judge others as your enemy. Do you teach your children that all non-LDS are evil and you must not associated with them - are you from the old school?

M.

You should be checking out your own posts then M. You are more guilty of what you accuse me of than I am, If I am, which I am not.