Alternate Voices: The Calling and its Implications

[RockyBalboa]

Dan have you noticed that the persecution and victim complex on this particular site amongst the LDS and those who've left the church comes from the intellectuals and "truth seekers"? If not, then you haven't been paying attention. They constantly act like victims of repression.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not following your argument here. Are you saying that the plan of happiness is for us to find our own answers and that Satans plans was to teach us what we would need to know to be "innoculated?"

If so, why have prophets or a church to teach us anything. I think you must mean something else, can you clarify?

I think we should examine the definition of innoculation.

1.to implant (a disease agent or antigen) in a person, animal, or plant to produce a disease for study or to stimulate disease resistance. [disease or agent in the form of ideas]

2. to imbue (a person), as with ideas.

Satan's desire was not to teach but rather, as supreme authority, force or compel us to be innoculated.

A prophets desire is to teach and encourage individuals to seek out higher authority for confirmation of thoughts, feelings and ideas. Such confirmation is the most effective innoculation.

What do each of us value -authority or freedom?

[Indy Coug]

The irony I've observed in some who would view themselves as alternative voices is that while they feel perfectly comfortable challenging the status quo, they seem very put off by others that would dare to challenge their assertions.

This is hardly an LDS phenomenon; we see it everywhere in contemporary academia.

Ostensibly, if someone embraces the notion that accepted knowledge should be examined and challenged, then there should be some reciprocity involved here.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm curious as to why you assume this. I'm not analyzing you personally here, but I have long thought that the persecution complex that we LDS have as a group and our sensativity to what "the world" things leads us to more skeptical of people's motives than we should be. Sure there is a world of anti out there, but why begin with the assumption that someone's motive is pride or something else? I think it is an intellectual dodge of sorts, even if only subconsciously.

How can an innate understanding of human nature be an intellectual dodge? My assumption is born of experience and evidence.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That is an interesting thing to say. Why does the unknowable comfort you? It is because it makes you realize that you don't need to understand everything?

I'd love to be able to say I don't need to understand everything -but that would be disingenuous. Rather, I have great faith in the idea that in time I WILL understand everything ... I am willing to be patient, and attempts to develop such willingness is very comforting.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The irony I've observed in some who would view themselves as alternative voices is that while they feel perfectly comfortable challenging the status quo, they seem very put off by others that would dare to challenge their assertions.

This is hardly an LDS phenomenon; we see it everywhere in contemporary academia.

Ostensibly, if someone embraces the notion that accepted knowledge should be examined and challenged, then there should be some reciprocity involved here.

I've observed similar tendancies, as if to say that the thinking has already been done. They become the very thing they so hate.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The irony I've observed in some who would view themselves as alternative voices is that while they feel perfectly comfortable challenging the status quo, they seem very put off by others that would dare to challenge their assertions.

This is hardly an LDS phenomenon; we see it everywhere in contemporary academia.

Ostensibly, if someone embraces the notion that accepted knowledge should be examined and challenged, then there should be some reciprocity involved here.

Intellectually I agree. The difficulty for intellectuals, such as Mauss, is that the reciprocity often involves censure and discipline, whereas intellectuals neither desire nor possess that power.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

intellectuals neither desire nor possess that power.

In the world at large they are empowered with the authority to ostricise, discipline and even oppress. They pocess exceptional power!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I think we should examine the definition of innoculation.

1.to implant (a disease agent or antigen) in a person, animal, or plant to produce a disease for study or to stimulate disease resistance. [disease or agent in the form of ideas]

2. to imbue (a person), as with ideas.

Satan's desire was not to teach but rather, as supreme authority, force or compel us to be innoculated.

A prophets desire is to teach and encourage individuals to seek out higher authority for confirmation of thoughts, feelings and ideas. Such confirmation is the most effective innoculation.

What do each of us value -authority or freedom?

Here is the difficult for some with LDS spirituality.

LDS teach, use reason coupled with faith and emotion, but if reason fails you, rely upon emotion. For some, this is comforting, for others it is not. For those who are more reason than emotion based, it is difficult and it appears leaders are unsympathetic to this difficulty. The Church almost goes out of its way to provide no reasonable or academic explanation for anything. Instead, it does not explain its idiosyncracies, conducts no academic studies of note and hopes people study it out in their minds and hearts, encouraging people to just believe. That is disconcerting for some.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here is the difficult for some with LDS spirituality.

LDS teach, use reason coupled with faith and emotion, but if reason fails you, rely upon emotion. For some, this is comforting, for others it is not. For those who are more reason than emotion based, it is difficult and it appears leaders are unsympathetic to this difficulty. The Church almost goes out of its way to provide no reasonable or academic explanation for anything. Instead, it does not explain its idiosyncracies, conducts no academic studies of note and hopes people study it out in their minds and hearts, encouraging people to just believe. That is disconcerting for some.

I would object to a spritual witness being equated to human emotion. Sometimes, people mistake emotion as a spritual witness, but I believe that is because they haven't had enough spiritual witnesses over time to be able to know the difference.

Often, a spiritual witness can lead to a display of emotion, but the river doesn't flow in the other direction.