This degree of dietary change is a little out of my league for the moment (since I don’t usually prepare my own food), but I considered it for a few minutes after reading your e-book.

   0 likes

-Heather aka KombuchaCHIC

   0 likes

   0 likes

I don’t think those positions are logically contrary because they describe different things. The first statement is about belief and the second is about discourse. I think that, especially on the internet, the more liberal mormons are relatively likely to either be apologists or to have substantial exposure to and quasi-training in apologetic methods. Open and thoughtful discussion can be very difficult with an apologist.

Especially in the context of mormonism, these “so-called liberals” are still a type of fundamentalist. They cannot/will not concede certain points, eg anything that contradicts an official statement made by a still living prophet (in contrast to a statement made by a now dead “living prophet,” which may be rejected when convenient).

   0 likes

   0 likes

The point about the press coverage (see the post I linked) was just that — back when it happened — the motive wasn’t known. Blogger (((billy))) argues that the story might have hit the national news again if the motive that came to light had been, say, a Muslim killing Christians, as opposed to a right-wing conservative killing liberals. But who knows? I’m just noting here that he makes an interesting argument.

   0 likes

   0 likes

Andrew — lol, I know…

p.s. to all:

There was actually a bit of a point-counterpoint on my reading list this week that I should have highlighted more explicitly:

Evolutionary Middleman says:

We have to be willing to live with less literalist beliefs about the universe, such as those imagined by Spinoza or Einstein. The problem lies with those who claim to know with certainty what those mysteries are, how they affect us and how we should live our lives in order to achieve harmony with these mysterious forces.

while Good Reason says:

I used to really look up to liberal Mormon thinkers who struggled to merge facts with fables, grappled with the difficulty of such an endeavour, and copped nothing but abuse from ignorant iron-rod believers. Now I think it’s the saddest thing I can think of, like someone who’s so close to understanding, but stopping themselves from taking the final liberating step. I actually think I’d rather talk to someone who argues that science is wrong and religion is right. At least then I’d be talking to someone for whom the truth matters.

Weirdly, I kind of agree with both of them, even though they seem to be somewhat conflicting positions… Opinions?

   0 likes

LOL, that conversation was SO painful to read!

   0 likes

I think it’s funny how this author was so critical of Mormons and their ability to always rationalize what might seem to be problematic, but then the author does the very same thing with Christianity. As if it is just *obvious* that the claims of Christianity are reasonable.

   0 likes