Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,182 Excellent

About SeekingUnderstanding

  • Rank
    And with all thy getting get understanding

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Kaysville, UT

Recent Profile Visitors

1,970 profile views
  1. 20B a year seems way too high to me. With 15 million members, say 6 million active, maybe 1.5 to 2 million families paying tithing? Hard to get to 20 B
  2. Just to be clear, Elder Oaks provides two example responses that would match his love the sinner hate the sin mantra. This was in response to a hypothetical request to bring ones partner into the home. The first he says would apply in “most circumstances”. So the majority of people responding to this would just answer no (“Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.”). In fact he goes on to say that “surely if there are children in the home” this would likely be the case. So in most cases loving the “sinner” means excluding their partner especially if kids are involved. Elder Oaks goes on to say He could also imagine “some circumstances” where a more liberal stance could be taken. This “liberal” stance excludes any public apperances: “Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”” So in the vast majority of circumstances, Elder Oaks does not envision any public role of appearing with their child’s partner. Now Elder Oaks could have shared an experience like the one in the OP, but did not. For me the OP marks a very distinct break from the type of advice give by Elder Oaks.
  3. Oh you were serious in your post? I was just trying to continue on in the joke!
  4. Indeed. Who can stand against long standing human traditions like slavery and child sacrifice. The moxie those people had!!
  5. I’m not sure adding God is sufficient, without an added assumption that God is good. This assumption runs afoul of the problem of evil. If you are interested in one atheists attempt, Sam Harris starts with the worst possible misery for each and every conscious creature in the universe is bad. Given that all fields of inquiry have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps a bit, This seems as good a fundamental axiom as any. I’ve never met a person in real life that disagreed with this definition, but apparently it is very controversial among philosophers. Just ask Pogi.
  6. Your reaction is exactly why anger is more likely the correct translation. It is much more difficult to explain why a scribe would change compassion to anger than the other way around. In addition it fits with Marks overall narrative. Interestingly, Mathew and Luke both omit the problematic sentence in their Gospels, dropping the word anger (or compassion) altogether. Their dropping the line seems much more likely if Jesus was expressing anger than expressing compassion. They, like you, apparently didn’t like Jesus’ anger here. Bart Erhmen has a wonderful paper on this particular verse. https://books.google.com/books?id=_YtWAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q&f=true
  7. Sorry! Hazard of phone typing. Post should have read “or also experienced among those that *died* suddenly.”
  8. Isn’t this the opposite of what the study found? I mean in the study, the terminally ill had the dreams not the relatives.
  9. I’d be curious if this is only a phenomenon among the terminally ill (those that know they are close to death) or also experienced among those that died suddenly.
  10. The survey is of self reported LDS. The most telling thing about it is that the majority of those who don’t attend, don’t identify as LDS. At least to pollsters.
  11. I’m completely on board with the pew data. In your world do two variables that are correlated always exist in a simple causative relationship? That is you believe correlation equals causation? That’s your argument? Really? That’s easy. People don’t want to associate with a religion that is seen as fundamentalist by their peers unless they were all in. The more education one has, the more likely ones peers view Mormonism as fundamentalist (the data bears this out with much lower commitment levels among mainline Protestants and Catholics than say evangelicals). Hence only fully committed Mormons show up in the survey. Can I prove it? No. It is simply one valid explanation of the data, but I’m not the one making a positive assertion, you are. Hence you bear the burden of proof.
  12. You have provided zero evidence either way on what impact a college education has on Mormons. Of those people that stay LDS, and identify as such, educated saints are very faithful. How many educated Saints lose their faith and no longer identify as Mormons? an equally valid interpretation of the data could be that educated Mormons who no longer participate are much less likely to identify as Mormon than say lapsed Catholics. Am I wrong? The only way to tell would be to study LDS over time and see what impact education levels have while controlling for other variables. Then compare to other religious groups. You’ve provided zero evidence that there is such a confluence. See above.
  13. Thanks and I’ve edited my post. It is immaterial to the point I was trying to make anyway. In order to determine what effect education has on faith, you need to do a lot more than ask self reported Latter-day Saints. You would need to do a much larger controlled study that includes those who no longer identify as LDS.
  14. The (***edit: unsourced) survey on faith crisis (****edit: that may have been presented to the church leadership) indicated that it affects those with significantly more education than the average member. Does this mean that education decreases faith or could something else be going on here? https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf
  • Create New...