NOM

Corsair wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:17 am

It is a clear logical fallacy to try and "prove" something by way of analogy. Will the biblical literalists in my Gospel Doctrine class cling to these flimsy apostolic boat analogies, or will they follow the Savior?

Love this concept, I am totally going here if/when my parents tell me to stay in the boat!

It's clear to me that Elder Renlund doesn't have a clue what faith is. He apparently thinks it's certainty, and that you can somehow turn certainty off and on like a switch - at least temporarily, until you achieve enlightenment.

Doubt is uncertainty. Faith is trust in something you might not be certain of. They coexist nicely. You don't need anything but Alma 32, which he ostensibly believes is correct, to show this.

Everything in what he thinks about faith is twisted to reflect his misunderstanding.

wakarusa wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:19 am

Here are my notes so you get the gist of it in just a few minutes and spare yourselves the time investment...

Thanks for doing that, wakarusa!

Wow, the Good Ship Zion has been downgraded to a dented, rusty old tub manned by people who give you bad food and water.

The stay-in-the-boat analogy never worked for me anyway. It assumes you are drowning in a storm and need rescuing. The whole thing falls apart once you realize the sense of danger is manufactured by the freaked-out, delusional people on the boat, and you can choose just to enjoy a swim in the calm water or wade ashore and stroll along the beach.

Welcome to the ___ show!!!

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:15 am

Is this circus the new standard?

Apostolic dual talks with the wife by your side?

They thought that the Pelosi/Schumer format looked so good that they had to recreate it.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:46 am

The whole thing falls apart once you realize the sense of danger is manufactured by the freaked-out, delusional people on the boat, and you can choose just to enjoy a swim in the calm water or wade ashore and stroll along the beach.

Wait. There's a beach and a shore?

I listened to this earlier as I was working and the summary was pretty spot on... this was not aimed at non-believers or those who are inactive. This was aimed to shore up those who are believers to not listen to anyone who comes to them with conflicting information.

My favorite part of their talk was when they said a few examples including 'you wouldn't get financial information from someone who was broke.' I need to get the full quote, but that was the gist... which was the most honest damned thing they said all night.

You shouldn't get Egyptian language info from the church when every expert says it's a fraud.
You shouldn't get info on who founded America from the Book of Mormon when geneticists tell us that Native Americans are from Asia.
You shouldn't get information from Joseph Smith on seeing both Elias and Elijah at the temple when Biblical scholars now know they are the same person.
You shouldn't discriminate against gay people along with the church when geneticists now know that people are born predisposed to be gay.

And so on and so on and so on...

So the Renlunds were right on that - you shouldn't get information from the church when they have no idea what they are talking about and have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

Reuben wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:42 am

It's clear to me that Elder Renlund doesn't have a clue what faith is. He apparently thinks it's certainty, and that you can somehow turn certainty off and on like a switch - at least temporarily, until you achieve enlightenment.

Doubt is uncertainty. Faith is trust in something you might not be certain of. They coexist nicely. You don't need anything but Alma 32, which he ostensibly believes is correct, to show this.

Everything in what he thinks about faith is twisted to reflect his misunderstanding.

This. With a nod to another thread I would call this infantilization of faith. Their idea of faith is unwavering credulity towards all correlated materials and rejection of all else.

They should be embarrassed by their lack of scriptural understanding.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:15 am

Is this circus the new standard?

Apostolic dual talks with the wife by your side?

Is this supposed to influence the young single adults to get married or just placate the believing Mormon feminists to prove that women do have worth in the church?

And why is the message to the people IN the church sound more like an attack on the people OUT of the church?

I’ve come to a kind of equilibrium between my loss of strong testimony and participation at church. I’m in my own little world on Sundays and just try to be nice and useful.

A small part of me still hopes I can get back to full hearted membership. I was almost certain that the devotional would be a new day. I was a little high on the temple changes and thought maybe word had come down to start talking real at these things and don’t treat people in their 20’s like ten year-olds. And stop discounting and and casting aspersions on the heartbroken people whose worlds have crumbled.

But, no.

I really don’t know why anyone holds out any hope that these kind of events will in any way help resolve or even mildly legitimize doubts about the truth claims of the Church. The Church gave up on the likes of us a long time ago. It is only transparent and honest about its very serious problems to the extent that the internet drags it kicking and screaming into the light of public scrutiny. Their strategy is to try and minimize the losses from the members they still have, they have no interest in trying to reclaim those of us they know they don’t have answers for. If they thought they had answers to the problems, Elder Renlund would have addressed the issues loudly and proudly. His unwillingness to do so speaks volumes about how confident Church leadership is that they have answers. So they just try and distract the members they still have from ever asking the questions they can’t answer.

When you are leading an organization that is so obviously not what it claims to be, the last thing you ever do is confront its problems head-on. You try and distract those who still believe and hope they don’t figure out what the problems are.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:00 am

I really don’t know why anyone holds out any hope that these kind of events will in any way help resolve or even mildly legitimize doubts about the truth claims of the Church. The Church gave up on the likes of us a long time ago. It is only transparent and honest about its very serious problems to the extent that the internet drags it kicking and screaming into the light of public scrutiny. Their strategy is to try and minimize the losses from the members they still have, they have no interest in trying to reclaim those of us they know they don’t have answers for. If they thought they had answers to the problems, Elder Renlund would have addressed the issues loudly and proudly. His unwillingness to do so speaks volumes about how confident Church leadership is that they have answers. So they just try and distract the members they still have from ever asking the questions they can’t answer.

When you are leading an organization that is so obviously not what it claims to be, the last thing you ever do is confront its problems head-on. You try and distract those who still believe and hope they don’t figure out what the problems are.

Absolutely. On our side, we need to be careful in conversations with TBMs about talks like this. This talk was full of logical fallacies and thought-stopping cliches. It was aimed directly at TBMs to let them know that people who leave the church are only worthy of mockery. It is unlikely that TBMs will confront the problems with the church. They use the talking points given in these events to gaslight those around them going through faith transitions. If the discussion centers on this talk, the TBM can sidestep the actual issues.

I will also say that I don't believe the Renlunds' whack-a-mole story. I would love for Steven to tell his side of the story. I notice that they did not claim that they had an answer for the temple/priesthood ban concern. Steven almost certainly experienced something different from what was described. Back in the day, I remember Hugh Nibley complaining that anti-Mormons never let JS tell his own story. They always paraphrased his words. I think this could be a legitimate problem. (Sidenote: I am happy to quote JS directly in order to show the problems with his story.) However, the church does the same thing, The leaders never let us tell our own story. They always paraphrase so that they can control the narrative.

I didn’t watch, but reading summaries here and elsewhere, I’m disappointed thinking my mom problably did (or will). My first name is Steven, so I’m sure she’ll see this as divine council.

The wack a mole analogy is spot on.

If doubters are the people playing wack a mole, then the church is the wack a mole machine.

It changes doctrines, ducks questioning, hides from the members, and sits idly alone when grown ups walk past it. It's a children's game. It's an institutionally dishonest church.

Perfect analogy Renlund!

blazerb wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:26 am

I would love for Steven to tell his side of the story. I notice that they did not claim that they had an answer for the temple/priesthood ban concern. Steven almost certainly experienced something different from what was described. Back in the day, I remember Hugh Nibley complaining that anti-Mormons never let JS tell his own story. They always paraphrased his words. I think this could be a legitimate problem. (Sidenote: I am happy to quote JS directly in order to show the problems with his story.) However, the church does the same thing, The leaders never let us tell our own story. They always paraphrase so that they can control the narrative.

Interesting point. I'm not a writer, but I think I may take a crack at writing Steven's story during lunch today. I'd love to counter that analogy and the picture it draws.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:46 am

wakarusa wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:19 am

Here are my notes so you get the gist of it in just a few minutes and spare yourselves the time investment...

Thanks for doing that, wakarusa!

Wow, the Good Ship Zion has been downgraded to a dented, rusty old tub manned by people who give you bad food and water.

The stay-in-the-boat analogy never worked for me anyway. It assumes you are drowning in a storm and need rescuing. The whole thing falls apart once you realize the sense of danger is manufactured by the freaked-out, delusional people on the boat, and you can choose just to enjoy a swim in the calm water or wade ashore and stroll along the beach.

I want to thank you too, and everyone else who watched/listened so others didn't have to (not that I would).

Great point about the calm sea and the great and spacious beach. So bizarre... and boy does this church love to play the martyr.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:04 am

The wack a mole analogy is spot on.

If doubters are the people playing wack a mole, then the church is the wack a mole machine.

It changes doctrines, ducks questioning, hides from the members, and sits idly alone when grown ups walk past it. It's a children's game. It's an institutionally dishonest church.

Perfect analogy Renlund!

If doubters are playing whack a mole, why doesn't the church address it's mole problem?

Funny how evil "doubt" has become. Just ignore it, or make fun of it, and hopefully it will go away.


I wonder where "mormonism" would be if Joseph Smith Jr. had completely ignored his doubts and never taken that little hike into the "sacred grove?"

Linked wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:48 am

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:04 am

The wack a mole analogy is spot on.

If doubters are the people playing wack a mole, then the church is the wack a mole machine.

It changes doctrines, ducks questioning, hides from the members, and sits idly alone when grown ups walk past it. It's a children's game. It's an institutionally dishonest church.

Perfect analogy Renlund!

If doubters are playing whack a mole, why doesn't the church address it's mole problem?

That's just it. They are the machine. They are the moles popping up and down. They can't address it because that effectively puts the game out of order.

It's the perfect system of control. The more they push the moles up and down the more relevant they are. Imagine if we all just walked away? Opposition to the church feeds their relevancy.

Ironically the Renlund talk created a pretty big response online. This has to validate the message in their minds!

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:15 am

And why is the message to the people IN the church sound more like an attack on the people OUT of the church?

Because the best way to keep people in is to demonize those who are out. The last thing in the world you want is to become one of THEM.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:15 pm

My favorite part of their talk was when they said a few examples including 'you wouldn't get financial information from someone who was broke.' I need to get the full quote, but that was the gist... which was the most honest damned thing they said all night.

And yet we are supposed to get spiritual guidance and life advice from a cardiologist? We are supposed to learn about Chritlike love from a group of sexist, homophobic bigots? This sh!t is too crazy....