Mormon study groups

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by creekster

Well done. I feel better for it.

Sarcasm doesn't come through well on here. So I just have to say...

Really?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Sarcasm doesn't come through well on here. So I just have to say...

Really?

No. I was being sarcastic. I am not reading as closely asI should today and for some reason my "do not post until you know what you are talking about" filter which, under teh best of circumstances is typically only partially functional, really fell apart today. I'll try to regroup later this week.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Sarcasm doesn't come through well on here. So I just have to say...

Really?

creekster can't take anything serious. He's always sarcastic.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Levin

One of my best friends went to an Ivy League law school. While there, he and his wife joined with other mormon couples also in graduate school to start a study group to discuss church issues of the kind we do here -- that is, it was not scripture study, but a wide-eyed examination of church history/doctrine, etc.

Within 18 months, every single couple (there were 5) had become inactive and/or left the church.

What's the moral of the story here? And no, I don't think the moral of the story is either (1) don't have non-scripture study groups (see Adam's positive experience with his), or (2) don't examine history and doctrine with open, inquiring eyes.

I think there's a different moral to the story . . .

I attended a fireside where Elder Oaks essentially said that an intensive study showed that a very large percentage of those who "intellectualized their way out of the church" were not balancing gospel study and scripture reading with their other investigations. It is like a long-time democrat suddenly watching all pro-republican propaganda and engaging in anti-democrat debates without collaterally entertaining the pro-democrat side of the coin.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Well done. I feel better for it.

Do you feel stronger?

[Solon]

Alright, Levin. You win.

You called me out on my BS. I was silly to think that maybe some members of Cougarguard who struggle with certain issues of LDS life might be considered good, faithful members of the church. Or, rather, I should have expressed my thoughts more clearly.

You're right. I said we can't measure faithfulness; well, at least nobody can really know the magnitude of another person's faithfulness (so I think). That's why I used language like "I'll bet" or "I think" or "My 1.8 cents." All these phrases indicated that I was just opining on matters that are impossible to prove one way or the other. So, although I recognize that it's impossible to measure for sure, I offered an opinion of what I thought, knowing full well that a more quantitative treatment was impossible. If this is really "talking out of both arses" (or however you put it), then you really didn't grasp what I was getting at. Nor do you grasp the basic workings of rhetoric and argument.

I never meant to imply that one had to have issues in order to be a faithful member. I also never meant to imply that those with issues would necessarily be better, stronger, more faithful members than those without. I only meant that - in my opinion - people who had been through a lot of doubt and grief, but still decided they wanted to belong to the LDS church would be strongly rooted in their faith. Probably stronger than average (again, just my opinion - no way to prove this). I continue to maintain this position.

Nor did I ever mean to include my self in the "strong faithful member" category. As I intimated before, I consider myself to be a borderlander, and am therefore out of the running on this matter. If you think I'm an arrogant elitist, you probably have ample reason, to some degree in some category. Not, however, with respect to my opinion of how good of a LDS I am.

I was thinking along the lines of many of the regular posters here who express varying degrees of dissent, doubt, or otherwise less-than-orthodox points of view yet who, to me, seem to be among the best and brightest LDS I can imagine (if I can take an internet persona at face value). Their stories indicate to me that they're doing their best to contribute to their LDS communities despite their internal doubts or questions or issues. I find this wholly commendable and wanted to say as much. If my opinion came across to you as arrogant or ill-founded, it's probably a function of both the shortcomings of my written prose, as well as some degree of misunderstanding on your part. Note that nobody else seems to have jumped on my case. I regret my communicative shortcomings. I regret more that I felt compelled to take the time to type this up, when it seems to me that you don't really take a lot of time to read what I write.

Finally, if you're going to "play the game" (as you put it), find something interesting to say. Or, at least find something more compelling to engage with than some guy's (mine) vaguely worded compliment to a bunch of internet dweebs he's never met.

PS - say hi to your mom for me.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I haven't seen Solon wrestle in the mud for a long time.

I know. I'm truly sorry for the pissing contest. It totally detracts from the thread's subject. I should just walk away.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Solon

Alright, Levin. You win.

You called me out on my BS. I was silly to think that maybe some members of Cougarguard who struggle with certain issues of LDS life might be considered good, faithful members of the church. Or, rather, I should have expressed my thoughts more clearly.

You're right. I said we can't measure faithfulness; well, at least nobody can really know the magnitude of another person's faithfulness (so I think). That's why I used language like "I'll bet" or "I think" or "My 1.8 cents." All these phrases indicated that I was just opining on matters that are impossible to prove one way or the other. So, although I recognize that it's impossible to measure for sure, I offered an opinion of what I thought, knowing full well that a more quantitative treatment was impossible. If this is really "talking out of both arses" (or however you put it), then you really didn't grasp what I was getting at. Nor do you grasp the basic workings of rhetoric and argument.

I never meant to imply that one had to have issues in order to be a faithful member. I also never meant to imply that those with issues would necessarily be better, stronger, more faithful members than those without. I only meant that - in my opinion - people who had been through a lot of doubt and grief, but still decided they wanted to belong to the LDS church would be strongly rooted in their faith. Probably stronger than average (again, just my opinion - no way to prove this). I continue to maintain this position.

Nor did I ever mean to include my self in the "strong faithful member" category. As I intimated before, I consider myself to be a borderlander, and am therefore out of the running on this matter. If you think I'm an arrogant elitist, you probably have ample reason, to some degree in some category. Not, however, with respect to my opinion of how good of a LDS I am.

I was thinking along the lines of many of the regular posters here who express varying degrees of dissent, doubt, or otherwise less-than-orthodox points of view yet who, to me, seem to be among the best and brightest LDS I can imagine (if I can take an internet persona at face value). Their stories indicate to me that they're doing their best to contribute to their LDS communities despite their internal doubts or questions or issues. I find this wholly commendable and wanted to say as much. If my opinion came across to you as arrogant or ill-founded, it's probably a function of both the shortcomings of my written prose, as well as some degree of misunderstanding on your part. Note that nobody else seems to have jumped on my case. I regret my communicative shortcomings. I regret more that I felt compelled to take the time to type this up, when it seems to me that you don't really take a lot of time to read what I write.

Finally, if you're going to "play the game" (as you put it), find something interesting to say. Or, at least find something more compelling to engage with than some guy's (mine) vaguely worded compliment to a bunch of internet dweebs he's never met.

PS - say hi to your mom for me.

Yeah, I was a little irritable last night. Maybe it was all the cowpies I had thrown at me. I get what you were doing -- expressing your respect for those who carry on in activity despite the trials of faith. For some reason I fixated on what I saw as a misplaced emphasis on those who endure through the trials of faith at the expense of those who may not struggle with faith, but who have struggles nonetheless. I realize that wasn't your intention.

Needless to say, I didn't talk to my mom.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

No. I was being sarcastic. I am not reading as closely asI should today and for some reason my "do not post until you know what you are talking about" filter which, under teh best of circumstances is typically only partially functional, really fell apart today. I'll try to regroup later this week.

I think it was the lack of errors in your typing that threw him off. All of a sudden, there was a perfectly-typed message from you, spelled correctly and with accurate syntax. All of a sudden, the world was turned upside down.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think it was the lack of errors in your typing that threw him off. All of a sudden, there was a perfectly-typed message from you, spelled correctly and with accurate syntax. All of a sudden, the world was turned upside down.

Dang, I was hoping this was going to be a post that said something about Pushingitrealgd being in a Mormon study group.