Can we be dispassionate about something we believe so passionately?

[The_Phoenix]

There is a board upon which I have spent many years which seems to be moving away from its original goal of defending Mormonism to being (as they recently put it); “neutral”. I believe that the Prophet was taught something along these lines, that “when we have enlisted in the cause of Christ we have forever left neutral ground”.

So my question is how does one discuss something dispassionately, when they are so passionate about their cause? Answer could include anything you feel ‘passionate” about; within limits of course.

“Come now let us reason [muse] together”. Kind of loses it’s appeal with one word changed.

[Dravin]

Why must one discuss dispassionately? Scientists will discuss say... the importance of a geologic finding, which quite a lot of passion. Passion doesn't mean one is absent the ability to give a proper analysis even if it can cloud one's ability. Nor does passion mean you're ranting and raving and jumping of the ceiling and calling everyone who disagrees with your analysis blind liars, though sometimes it can.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Dravin

[The_Phoenix]

Why must one discuss dispassionately? Scientists will discuss say... the importance of a geologic finding, which quite a lot of passion. Passion doesn't mean one is absent the ability to give a proper analysis even if it can cloud one's ability. Nor does passion mean you're ranting and raving and jumping of the ceiling and calling everyone who disagrees with your analysis blind liars, though sometimes it can.

Agreed and no one crosses that line often, I am speaking more to the point of those how have spent years in defense of the faith being told to back off and tone it down, be "neutral". How is this to be done? This site FAIR is one of the most civil of which I have ever been a part of on the net.

[applepansy]

It has been my experience that even when I try really hard to word my thoughts in a dispassionate way I don't have the control to decide how the other person's passions will affect how they receive my words.

[The_Phoenix]

It has been my experience that even when I try really hard to word my thoughts in a dispassionate way I don't have the control to decide how the other person's passions will affect how they receive my words.

This is very much the case.

[Dravin]

Agreed and no one crosses that line often, I am speaking more to the point of those how have spent years in defense of the faith being told to back off and tone it down, be "neutral". How is this to be done? This site FAIR is one of the most civil of which I have ever been a part of on the net.

Generally in that particular context being neutral means to pry yourself off the rhetorical ceiling. It's somewhat like writing a paper for school, while you can clearly believe your position correct you need to grant a certain amount of validity to the opposing position by giving him a fair voicing and laying off some of the more emotive rhetorical tricks.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is a board upon which I have spent many years which seems to be moving away from its original goal of defending Mormonism to being (as they recently put it); “neutral”. I believe that the Prophet was taught something along these lines, that “when we have enlisted in the cause of Christ we have forever left neutral ground”.

So my question is how does one discuss something dispassionately, when they are so passionate about their cause? Answer could include anything you feel ‘passionate” about; within limits of course.

“Come now let us reason [muse] together”. Kind of loses it’s appeal with one word changed.

I wonder if your question could be reworded to say 'Can we speak from the mind about the things we know in our hearts to be true?' And the answer to that is, sure. But to really communicate with someone on a spiritual level it does take passion, it does take speaking from the heart. The spirit communicates with spirit when that happens. This, of course, is difficult to do on a computer. But often times as people read certain things, the Holy spirit can testify to the truth without the person intellectually reasoning and receiving understanding in that way. More often though, secular discussions only result in secular understanding at best.

[The_Phoenix]

Generally in that particular context being neutral means to pry yourself off the rhetorical ceiling. It's somewhat like writing a paper for school, while you can clearly believe your position correct you need to grant a certain amount of validity to the opposing position by giving him a fair voicing and laying off some of the more emotive rhetorical tricks.

Always. That was an agreement not a question.

[The_Phoenix]

I wonder if your question could be reworded to say 'Can we speak from the mind about the things we know in our hearts to be true?' And the answer to that is, sure. But to really communicate with someone on a spiritual level it does take passion, it does take speaking from the heart. The spirit communicates with spirit when that happens. This, of course, is difficult to do on a computer. But often times as people read certain things, the Holy spirit can testify to the truth without the person intellectually reasoning and receiving understanding in that way. More often though, secular discussions only result in secular understanding at best.

On this site no testimonies are permitted. It is hard to do this at times, to be in favor of something and not be "preaching".

[Guest mormonmusic]

There is a board upon which I have spent many years which seems to be moving away from its original goal of defending Mormonism to being (as they recently put it); “neutral”. I believe that the Prophet was taught something along these lines, that “when we have enlisted in the cause of Christ we have forever left neutral ground”.

So my question is how does one discuss something dispassionately, when they are so passionate about their cause? Answer could include anything you feel ‘passionate” about; within limits of course.

“Come now let us reason [muse] together”. Kind of loses it’s appeal with one word changed.

To me, it comes from wording things in a way which

a) reduces relationship conflict and misunderstanding

b) recognizes the complexity of life, and that even the most passionate position can be wrong for certain people.

c) preserves the person's self-control, and sense of "gentlemanlyness" if male, or "gentlewomanlyness" if female.

Harsh, emotionally charged words, even if passionate, tend NOT to get the message across. I see it here all the time. There are people who feel they are just speaking their mind without considering the implications of what they write, who it might offend, and the relationship conflict it can cause due to accusations, implications, and innuendo. They leave that completely to chance, unmanaged. And then get offended when people call them out about it. They are blind to the lack of management of their language. And to make matters worse, others will then support them in such uncategorical statements!!! That is sometimes the culture.

I like what Ben Franklin said in counterpoint to this. He commented that when he was younger, he would make unequivocal, uncategorical statements. This would only put his colleagues off -- they would not listen to him. He then learned to say things like:

"it seems to me that...." or "my perspective is that....". I think he would agree with replacing "always" with "often" and "all" with "some" in a wide variety of debates and opinion-giving. He would likley not assume impure motives on the part of others, and put a spin on their words that makes them sound ostentatious when there wasn't sufficient, strong evidence that was their motive.

I see these thing regularly left unconsidered by many.

For me, passion is found in getting the results I'm seeking, not in passionate language.

As someone once said, great people never offend anyone unknowingly....[and that implies knowingly too, which is conscious). Now there are times when issues are critical and there is no easy solution, you might have to offend, but I think those occasions are rare.

[The_Phoenix]

To me, it comes from wording things in a way which

a) reduces relationship conflict and misunderstanding

b) recognizes the complexity of life, and that even the most passionate position can be wrong for certain people.

c) preserves the person's self-control, and sense of "gentlemanlyness" if male, or "gentlewomanlyness" if female.

Harsh, emotionally charged words, even if passionate, tend NOT to get the message across. I see it here all the time. There are people who feel they are just speaking their mind without considering the implications of what they write, who it might offend, and the relationship conflict it can cause due to accusations, implications, and innuendo. They leave that completely to chance, unmanaged. And then get offended when people call them out about it. They are blind to the lack of management of their language. And to make matters worse, others will then support them in such uncategorical statements!!! That is sometimes the culture.

I like what Ben Franklin said in counterpoint to this. He commented that when he was younger, he would make unequivocal, uncategorical statements. This would only put his colleagues off -- they would not listen to him. He then learned to say things like:

"it seems to me that...." or "my perspective is that....". I think he would agree with replacing "always" with "often" and "all" with "some" in a wide variety of debates and opinion-giving. He would likley not assume impure motives on the part of others, and put a spin on their words that makes them sound ostentatious when there wasn't sufficient, strong evidence that was their motive.

I see these thing regularly left unconsidered by many.

For me, passion is found in getting the results I'm seeking, not in passionate language.

As someone once said, great people never offend anyone unknowingly....[and that implies knowingly too, which is conscious). Now there are times when issues are critical and there is no easy solution, you might have to offend, but I think those occasions are rare.

I like this quote; “A Zealot; one who is illuminated and blinded by the same light”

[Dravin]

As someone once said, great people never offend anyone unknowingly....[and that implies knowingly too, which is conscious). Now there are times when issues are critical and there is no easy solution, you might have to offend, but I think those occasions are rare.

Interesting. The only conclusion (that I can reach at least) is that there have never been any great people. Was the use of a categorical paraphrase intentional in a post about the importance of qualifications? If so I think it was played fairly well.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest mormonmusic]

Good point -- perhaps the original author should have said:

"It seems to me that great people I have known rarely offend anyone unknowingly".

In my experience, this is true -- they have such respect for people's station in life, their individuality, their unique perspective, they know how to talk to people in a way that is not offensive or bigoted, considering their perspective in their choice of words, distilling it into pure meaning, without relationship interference that is not part of the point. They are passionate and clear in their meaning, without being offensive.

And, here is another observation -- I've found that when you indicate you subscribe to a particular moral code, people start looking for ways in which you don't live up to it....it's the price of trying to be ethical, as many Mormons have discovered. There are tendencies in human nature to enjoy uncovering inconsistencies in the others who subscribe to a certain moral code, even when on the whole, they tend to live it to the best of their ability.

Edited December 7, 2011 by mormonmusic

[prisonchaplain]

I am going to completely side with the call to "neutrality." The wording you use suggests that the site in question is growing weak, or watering down its defense. Could it be that they are maturing, and desiring to be taken as a scholarly source of LDS information?

In my movement, our Bible Institutes became Bible colleges, became colleges, and are now mostly universities. Some decried this transition, saying that the original purpose of quickly training up Spirit-anointed preachers was being watered down. I'd suggest our schools are better in quality, and that their reach is now quantitatively greater as well.

On the evangelical side, are you not pleased that many of the former polemic groups have abandoned the shrill, antagonistic attacks on your faith, and instead have begun to engage in sophisticated theological conversations with BYU theologians and professors?

I'd take the quote from one of the previous posts, "Come let us reason together" and offer that it is much superior to the former, "Come, let us yell at and condemn one another."

Edited December 7, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[annewandering]

We can be dispassionate a lot if we are good at dissociating. ^^ Might check that out with a therapist if you are really good at that!

[Guest mormonmusic]

I have also found that those who tend NOT to look at their own religion with extremism, and with an open-mind, tend to have very Christlike qualities that are attractive. I am in involved in one of those discussion groups now, and the one is very charitable. Firm on certain issues, but overall, charitable, tolerant, lacking contention and drama. Yet without surrender of core values either....I find it strange, and in being "watered down" as some might argue, it has become more concentrated in Christlike living!

[unixknight]

In general, I think the problem is that (and this has been mentioned in the thread already) you can't always control how your words will be received. If someone is predisposed to take offense at what you have to say, then they're going to be put off no matter how gently you phrase your comments. A gently worded statement can easily be interpreted as being condescending.

And there are also people out there for whom the phrase "I don't agree." is the most devastating personal attack you can possibly level against them. They're not as uncommon as one might think.

[The_Phoenix]

I have also found that those who tend NOT to look at their own religion with extremism, and with an open-mind, tend to have very Christlike qualities that are attractive. I am in involved in one of those discussion groups now, and the one is very charitable. Firm on certain issues, but overall, charitable, tolerant, lacking contention and drama. Yet without surrender of core values either....I find it strange, and in being "watered down" as some might argue, it has become more concentrated in Christlike living!

The term "watered down" also brings to mind being "lukewarm".

[Guest mormonmusic]

On that note -- this reminds me of a conversation I had with a member of our SP a while ago. He mentioned that he felt I was OVER COMMITTED and judgmental of people who were not as committed as I was. At the time, I couldn't fathom it-- overcomitted? How can one be TOO HOT for the gospel?

He said -- everyone is at different levels at any given time. Some have their testimony and commitment ebb and flow through their life depending on different pressures in their lives....so, when people bring the lukewarm judgment on to people, I reflect on that conversation -- his point was to be charitable to the lukewarm people. There lies longsuffering and patience. Don't trade being hot about the gospel with other virtues that come with being Christlike.

[The_Phoenix]

On that note -- this reminds me of a conversation I had with a member of our SP a while ago. He mentioned that he felt I was OVER COMMITTED and judgmental of people who were not as committed as I was. At the time, I couldn't fathom it-- overcomitted? How can one be TOO HOT for the gospel?

He said -- everyone is at different levels at any given time. Some have their testimony and commitment ebb and flow through their life depending on different pressures in their lives....so, when people bring the lukewarm judgment on to people, I reflect on that conversation -- his point was to be charitable to the lukewarm people. There lies longsuffering and patience. Don't trade being hot about the gospel with other virtues that come with being Christlike.

I am seldom confrontational; the subject matter is when discussing the souls of men and woman when the two parties disagree.

[volgadon]

I am seldom confrontational; the subject matter is when discussing the souls of men and woman when the two parties disagree.

Ecclisiastes said, and I paraphrase, there is a time for everything.

The reason for the no testimony/preaching rule at thatsite is because if someone is in preaching mode that tends to drop discussion dead in its tracks.

[The_Phoenix]

Ecclisiastes said, and I paraphrase, there is a time for everything.

The reason for the no testimony/preaching rule at thatsite is because if someone is in preaching mode that tends to drop discussion dead in its tracks.

I agree, that is why I have never had a problem with the "no testimonies" aspect of the website. It is just hard finding middle ground with someone whom you have a difficult history form other sources (websites).

[annewandering]

What site are you referring to? Mormon Apologetics?