Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[RockyBalboa]

Rocky, with all due respect, this is precisely the problem here and elsewhere today. Your use of language indicates that you do not even acknowledge or validate the viewpoints of others as worth considering - or even existing. Statements like "I was clear" or "it's not even debatable" are subjective statements presented as absolute fact. It IS debatable - or it would be debatable if the debate wouldn't be greeted with the Brick Wall of Eff You with regularity. There is no exchange of ideas; only a presentment of one opinion and complete and utter rejection of all others, with perhaps a promise to shut up about it if enough people tell you to.

I don't know if you really feel this way. But you language seems to indicate you do.

As far as SU goes, sure, he is consistent in his approach. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I also do not doubt the fun he has in stirring the pot. However, I have shared some of the most intimate and special spiritual and religious experiences I have ever had here, in full view of the Red Fox, and he has never, not once, done anything to make me regret doing that or commented in a way that has made me feel uncomfortable about doing so. Doubtless he thinks I am a brainwashed ninny, but that's fine. I think SU is notable, not for what he says, but for what he doesn't.

And again I'll just disagree. SU is a constant troll. Rare is the moment in the relgious forum where he isn't seeking to upset, mock, and ridicule.

[woot]

Probably because he is guilty of that which he accuses Elder Holland:

I hate the argument that SU used here. It's the same as those who say "Boy there must be something to creationism or else scientists wouldn't spend so much time arguing against it." Sometimes things just need to be said. Holland's talk has enough other problems that can be concretely identified without resorting to this sort of pseudopsychology.

[SeattleUte]

I dug the rest of the talk. That one line didn't sit well with me. Maybe it wasn't meant as anything more than anecdotal discussion fodder. thanks.

One person who is trolling in this thread is 3D. But he's always so charming! He unfailingly charms. If I went to hell and my punishment was an eternity of home teachers, I would choose 3D and Sooner.

[RobinFinderson]

SU stirs the pot here. This is a more interesting site because of his pot-stirring. Whether his pot-stirring is characterized as 'trolling' or 'disrespectful' or anything else, this site is better on the whole for his contributions. In contrast, it is my personal opinion, that whining about SU's contributions to the site make this place less interesting. To his critics I say, get over it. CUF isn't an extension of the chapel. Apostates can share their testimony side-by-side with the faithful, and that is what makes CUF a more interesting place than a purely ex-mo or pro-mo site.

[LA Ute]

I think SU is notable, not for what he says, but for what he doesn't.

Yes. I asked him if he'd watched the video of the talk; typically, he made no response. My guess is that it would be very hard for him to watch that one. Meanwhile, he's pushed a small stone down the hill and is now (silently, and probably happily) watching the ensuing landslide. A strange way to get one's kicks.

[RockyBalboa]

I don't pretend to know SU's motivation, but the truth is made some interesting, reasoned points. Whether he made those points in an appropriate venue or at an appropriate time may be debatable, but his points were interesting.

I'll also add that SU has toned the derision quite a bit. He is much more civil with those with whom he disagrees. I see no reason why people can't respectfully offer opposing points of view.

I agree...I see no reason why people can't do that and it's a shame he refuses to do so and would rather mock and dis-respect either the beliefs or the believers on a consistant basis.

I'll draw a parallel: While I'm no fan of Robin's his post this morning about whether it was inappropriate for Pres. Monson to share a certain story was a genuine question on his part. He wasn't trolling. In his opinion it was inappropriate. That approach I can appreciate and respect, so my hat off to Robin for broaching a subject that could be delicate in nature. He handled it with class and civility.

SU on the other hand in this thread seeks to call Joseph Smith a megolamanical narcissist and Elder Holland undignified....all without having listened to or watching the talk. It's pure vintage SU trolling.

There's a difference.

[JohnnyLingo]

I'll draw a parallel: While I'm no fan of Robin's his post this morning about whether it was inappropriate for Pres. Monson to share a certain story was a genuine question on his part. He wasn't trolling. In his opinion it was inappropriate.

SU on the other hand in this thread seeks to call Joseph Smith a megolamanical narcissist and Elder Holland undignified....all without having listened to or watching the talk. It's pure vintage SU trolling.

I think SU is playing a game, but whatever he's doing, it does fit the definition of trolling.

Good point on the difference between Robin and SU.

[SeattleUte]

I hate the argument that SU used here. It's the same as those who say "Boy there must be something to creationism or else scientists wouldn't spend so much time arguing against it." Sometimes things just need to be said. Holland's talk has enough other problems that can be concretely identified without resorting to this sort of pseudopsychology.

I think it is unseemly how much scientists spend fixated on creationism. They should get a life! How often do you see me here railing aginst New World horses and chariots? Almost never. Dawkins and others debase themselves, and, frankly, reduce religion to a crude caricature, which it is not (although there is much about American Religion that caricaturizes itself). I have repeatedly made the same comlaint here against scientists that I am leveling against Holland.

Further, I think religion and science are different disciplines. Logic, proofs, hypotheses, rhetoric, are the province of scientists and philsophers. My image of a powerful religious leader whose acts and words befit the dignity of his office, and commands moral authority, is not one who speaks in a loud voice about the irrationality and bad faith of those who reject the alleged unassailable "logic" of his creed.

[Non Sequitur]

SU stirs the pot here. This is a more interesting site because of his pot-stirring. Whether his pot-stirring is characterized as 'trolling' or 'disrespectful' or anything else, this site is better on the whole for his contributions. In contrast, it is my personal opinion, that whining about SU's contributions to the site make this place less interesting. To his critics I say, get over it. CUF isn't an extension of the chapel. Apostates can share their testimony side-by-side with the faithful, and that is what makes CUF a more interesting place than a purely ex-mo or pro-mo site.

Well said. Anyone who has spent more than a minute on an ex-Mo site can see that SU is not of that ilk. He's not just a pedestrian basher. Sure, he might twist a nipple here and there, but no one can deny that he has a certain endearing wit and flair. The site is better for his contributions.

[TripletDaddy]

One person who is trolling in this thread is 3D. But he's always so charming! He unfailingly charms. If I went to hell and my punishment was an eternity of home teachers, I would choose 3D and Sooner.

I can't count how many times I have been accused of trolling. Then it turns out that I actually was not trolling.

I thought there was some irony in saying "hey, why would the BoM guys die for this book if they made it all up?" when the same sort of logic is rejected when it is applied to homosexuals.

If I am already in Hell, I doubt I would go home teaching....what would be the point? Although if I were to visit you, I would definitely regale you with offerings from the "Mormon Poetry" submissions. Even Milton could not conjure up a more hellacious existence than user-submitted Ensign poetry.

[RockyBalboa]

Well said. Anyone who has spent more than a minute on an ex-Mo site can see that SU is not of that ilk. He's not just a pedestrian basher. Sure, he might twist a nipple here and there, but he no one can deny that he has a certain endearing wit and flair. The site is better for his contributions.

I'm not asking him to leave, nor have I ever.

I'd just like him to see him troll a lot less in this forum and be more respectful, but he seems unwilling.

This is not an unreasonable request.

[SeattleUte]

I thought there was some irony in saying "hey, why would the BoM guys die for this book if they made it all up?" when the same sort of logic is rejected when it is applied to homosexuals.

You weren't trolling with this observation. Otherwise, you were trolling progressive Mormons, because you are on record saying it matters not if Nephi was a real historical person.

[woot]

I think it is unseemly how much scientists spend fixated on creationism. They should get a life! How often do you see me here railing aginst New World horses and chariots? Almost never. Dawkins and others debase themselves, and, frankly, reduce religion to a crude caricature, which it is not (although there is much about American Religion that caricaturizes itself). I have repeatedly made the same comlaint here against scientists that I am leveling against Holland.

Further, I think religion and science are different disciplines. Logic, proofs, hypotheses, rhetoric, are the province of scientists and philsophers. My image of a powerful religious leader whose acts and words befit the dignity of his office, and commands moral authority, is not one who speaks in a loud voice about the irrationality and bad faith of those who reject the alleged unassailable "logic" of his creed.

If new world horses and chariots were a pervasive and constant threat to the education of our children, I guarantee you'd see a lot more talk about those subjects coming from scientists who know better. Similarly, I assume you must hate how much we are hearing about the extreme danger to society that the anti-vaccination movement presents? The scientists couldn't possibly just be concerned about saving children from preventable death; they obviously think the anti-vaccination movement is onto something.

[TripletDaddy]

You weren't trolling with this observation. Otherwise, you were trolling progressive Mormons, because you are on record saying it matters not if Nephi was a real historical person.

Then wherein was I trolling?

I think you are trying to deflect the negative vibes away from yourself and towards me. I knew you would be furious with me once you realized that UW's win over SC was the annual fluke win, and not a type and shadow of great things yet to come.

[byu71]

I will admit I succumb to the trolling now and then and I troll now and then.

However, I am not going to apologize for it.

A couple of wise posters on this board helped me with my problem with being trolled. The message, which took a while to sink in, was I can controll how I react to the troller.

I can engage emotionally, just engage, not respond or fix it so I don't see the persons posts. I don't have the power to make them stop, unless of course it is my site. After all these years, I can't believe someone really got to me.

One last thing. Anyone can be accused of trolling. If you make a comment, don't you hope someone has an opinion on what you said. Yet, if someone accuses us of it, we have an automatic "who me" response.