Are there any valid criticisms?

[DrW]

Tell me Doc, how this kind of comment furthers the discussion? I am all ears. That is why you are labeled as smug. "Mormonized thinking"???

Ok Al Gore.

2 can play this 3rd grade game.

Fine.

Perhaps you could start by explaining how "atheism is measured" (and why anyone would want do measure it).

Then maybe you could enlighten me on how supernatural and natural phenomena could exist in the same causation sequence. Please be specific.

Don't worry about the final analogy, I have just about got that one worked out for myself.

[beastie]

In brazen defiance of my explicit request that you stay on topic.

I'm asking you again to leave this thread altogether, Beastie. Since you cannot show even the slightest respect for the wishes of the thread originator, you have no business being here.

That was my last post about the Gino incident. Every post I have made since that time, with the exception of this direct response to you, hasn't mentioned it at all. I have been directly on topic (which should not be considered a concession that I think the Gino thread is off topic - I don't, but I think it's been sufficiently exposed) Moreover, I have actually supported your position. I think your point is correct. I just think you're a hypocrite for making it.

I don't recall a rule saying that originators of threads have the right to demand specific posters not participate, but I could be wrong. I'll review the rules and see.

.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Fine.

Perhaps you could start by explaining how "atheism is measured" (and why anyone would want do measure it).

Then maybe you could enlighten me on how supernatural and natural phenomena could exist in the same causation sequence. Please be specific.

Don't worry about the final analogy, I have just about got that one worked out for myself.

That is not my battle. I am merely pointing to something in your posts that it seems you got.

[Skylla]

Beastie: You have refused to stay on topic. You're out of this thread.

Skylla

[Deborah]

Heh. I was earlier thinking that "greatness and integrity" aren't words that fit the man, either.

Those are words used by those who actually knew him warts and all.

[Skylla]

Pahoran,

You seem to be on a roll. Why not just go ahead deal with post #125 on this thread as well?

While you are at it, please explain how a man in his 30's gets to "marry" a 14 year old girl without being classified at least as a pedophile or a sexual predator.

Your posting privileges are being suspended. Anyone who calls Joseph Smith a pedophile will get the same.

Skylla

[Jeff K.]

QUOTE(Jeff K. @ Jul 9 2009, 05:27 PM)

No your thought process is rather limited.

For instance, you believe that God must somehow work through unnatural or supernatural means. I don't. That is your irrational belief placed upon others, your point of view in attempting to define others. The act itself is irrational and prejudicial.

How does one test atheism? I look forward to seeing that. Is there some secret test that comes up with "no god" or do you revert to an irrational belief that cannot be proven?

Atheism does this how? How is atheism tested and measured? Or will you concede that atheism's faith based belief system has no proof and so faith is your foundation, something you call "irrational".

Perhaps if you at one time attended a school you might be more convincing rather than rely on ad homs.

If I might provide an analogy. Simply because you know how an automobile works, does not mean there isn't a driver.

Jeff K.

Considering your latest response, and especially your final analogy, I would still suggest that you head back to a good school at the earliest opportunity. (or at least think through what you are saying and see if really makes sense before you push the upload button). This is not intended as an ad hominem attack, but as some friendly advice.

For example, think about your first statement, that God "works through natural means". What exactly does that mean? Do you have any idea how silly that old Mormon saw sounds? Think about it. If the means by which some event or phenomenon occurs are natural, then they are natural, by definition. They are not supernatural. Please give me one example of how the supernatural controlling the natural would work, and then explain to me how this could be termed "natural".

Why ask how atheism is measured? What does that mean, exactly?

The same kind of â??Mormonizedâ? thinking that opened your response continues all the way through it, up to and including your final â??analogyâ?.

Hmm lets see your response.

First off, you again fall back to claims that I should attend schools when you have no idea as to my education. And regardless of your claims of innocence (dishonest claims I might add) it is indeed an ad hominem attack. You do not state where you believe my education lies at fault, you do not show what education is needed, you simply make a generalized statement and that "oh by the way, that insult was an insult". I would suggest you refine your dishonesty, it is somewhat obvious.

You claim supernatural means, and yet, you cannot really explain what you mean by "supernatural means". It reflects a certain lack of thoughtful review, and reflects more your dogmatic approach to your stance. What exactly are natural means my friend? Well it is quite simple, with effort, even you may understand it.

I believe that all things that occur, occur within the sphere of existence, and they adhere to laws, both known and unknown, therefore since they are not outside existence (both temporal and spiritual) they are by their nature, "natural". God works through natural means. I leave it to the ignorant to presume that anything they cannot understand, or cannot understand from others, to claim "supernatural" or "unnatural". A claim you have made.

Please give me one example of how the supernatural controlling the natural would work, and then explain to me how this could be termed "natural".

I don't have to, since it is rather obvious. If God works through natural means, how would you know the difference? Beyond the creation (which no one has yet explained), it would be impossible to say how a natural occurrance may have been directed by God. So like your faith based atheism (which you cannot prove) we exist within the realm of faith. So please, spare me your rather shabby attempts at ridicule. They reflect deep seated insecurity in your case.

Why ask how atheism is measured? What does that mean, exactly?

Let us see, what did you say......

Theories based on the supernatural creation assertion are useless because it is untestable. On the other hand, scientific theories based on observations of, and experimentation with, natural phenomena can be tested and have proven extremely successful.

So how is atheism tested and measured? After all, according to you it is a natural phenomenon, whereas Mormon ideals are "supernatural". Chuckle, do you ever think before you post?

The same kind of â??Mormonizedâ? thinking that opened your response continues all the way through it, up to and including your final â??analogyâ?.

And so we see the typical ad hominem from a person who really hasn't presented a reasoned argument beyond calling thought "Mormonized" and demanding petulantly that other people have a higher standard of proof than he holds his own faith based belief system to.

You should hold your contempt in check and use thoughtful logic.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your posting privileges are being suspended. Anyone who calls Joseph Smith a pedophile will get the same.

Skylla

Bummer, I understand you must do it. I was having such a great time with DrW. Once in a while some one comes along that is super slick in thier speech it is fun to see how they respond. Some time they don't have very good arguments and I am amazed at how they stick to thier guns.

We will see you in a while DrW.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

DrW, Said

"Theories based on the supernatural creation assertion are useless because it is untestable. On the other hand, scientific theories based on observations of, and experimentation with, natural phenomena can be tested and have proven extremely successful."

Jeff K. Said

"So how is atheism tested and measured? After all, according to you it is a natural phenomenon, whereas Mormon ideals are "supernatural". Chuckle, do you ever think before you post?"

This is awsome. I can't wait. Though it isn't my battle it is interesting to see how the talking moves.

[LifeOnaPlate]

DrW, I never did get a good response from you on the magical thinking business. Your comments in this thread almost seem to be a parody.

[Jeff K.]

I hadn't considered he might be a parody of an anti Mormon, but given the post, I suppose it is plausible. I will have to give such more thought next time I post.

[cksalmon]

Well, to keep it simple, then, let's just say that DrW's list was not one of valid criticisms of the Church - or its members.

Let's make it simpler still, j: Are there any valid criticisms of the Church that might provoke one to leave it?

Indeed, the "criticisms" often offered as justification for leaving the Church are usually smoke screens. I think Pahoran has done a good job of summarizing DrWs list and why those criticisms are invalid. Of course, you may have a different viewpoint on some of those.

No, I didn't find Pahoran's rebuttals of the legitimate issues particularly compelling. Smoke screens for what?

However, I am curious. Why the need to wax voluminous with your prose in making a rather minor, hair-splitting point?

Whether or not you believe that there are no valid criticisms that might provoke one to leave the LDS Church is not a minor, hair-splitting point, I don't think. And that's the issue I'm interested in at this point. It does go to the heart of the OP.

(As to the tone, I'm just having a bit of fun. And have been re-reading Plato's early dialogues. Shoot me.)

cks

EDIT: Here's a good way in. Do you agree with Scott Lloyd that those who leave the LDS Church are inspired by Satan to do so and that there is no more than a merely theoretical possibility (certainly not an actual possibility) that the LDS Church is not true? Or, would you hold to a more moderate position, a la dblagent007, who has not made the choice to leave the church, but who claims not to believe that those who do so are necessarily acting as pawns of Satan, and/or are failing to use reason appropriately?

[Tchild2]

DrW, I never did get a good response from you on the magical thinking business. Your comments in this thread almost seem to be a parody.

Nice strategy. Challenging after someone has been banned. Classy.

[jwhitlock]

Let's make it simpler still, j: Are there any valid criticisms of the Church that might provoke one to leave it?

Ah, I see now. You want to pull the question totally out of the context of the OP - which had to do with DrW's inane first point.

Just to clarify further, you want to expand it to all criticisms, of anything (including members), by anyone, not just be self-professed enemies of the Church, correct?

No, I didn't find Pahoran's rebuttals of the legitimate issues particularly compelling. Smoke screens for what?

I didn't think you would, coming from an alternate authority-bias. The smoke screen was to mask whatever real reason he had for leaving the Church - which was not on the list.

Whether or not you believe that there are no valid criticisms that might provoke one to leave the LDS Church is not a minor, hair-splitting point, I don't think. And that's the issue I'm interested in at this point. It does go to the heart of the OP.

Whoops, and now you've moved the goalposts back to criticisms-justifying-leaving-the-Church, which was what I had been answering all along.

Well, then unless you move the goalposts again, the short answer is "no". I can't think of one.

(As to the tone, I'm just having a bit of fun. And have been re-reading Plato's early dialogues. Shoot me.)

And what liquid would you like to have in the squirt gun?

EDIT: Here's a good way in. Do you agree with Scott Lloyd that those who leave the LDS Church are inspired by Satan to do so and that there is no more than a merely theoretical possibility (certainly not an actual possibility) that the LDS Church is not true? Or, would you hold to a more moderate position, a la dblagent007, who has not made the choice to leave the church, but who claims not to believe that those who do so are necessarily acting as pawns of Satan, and/or are failing to use reason appropriately?

Heck, Satan spends quite a bit of time trying to inspire me, so to think that he ignores apostates seems unreasonable.

The curious relational triangle of the Spirit, the influence of Satan, and free will is a somewhat deeper theological debate than I have time for on this thread. In a nutshell, just like there are people who are demonstrably children of God, and others who are children of heck - and examples of both can be used to bolster whatever position on either extreme one wishes to take - those tend to be people who have been "successful" at subordinating their free will fully to one side or the other. Most of the rest of us vacillate in between the two sides, being pulled, over time, towards one side or the other. In leaving the Church, some people simply get pulled by other interests or influences, and lose interest in the Church - perhaps having never really understood it. Others choose to move away from the Church, not by lack of interest, but out of opposition. In those cases, there is most likely some influence of Satan at hand.

Do you believe that Satan has the same kind of pervasive influence as the Holy Spirit does? Or in other words, are the constantly contending against each other for influence in our lives?

[sethpayne]

Beastie: You have refused to stay on topic. You're out of this thread.

Skylla

Nice double standard, Mods. Bravo.

You could at least try to appear even-handed in your banishments.

[Nemesis]

Nice double standard, Mods. Bravo.

You could at least try to appear even-handed in your banishments.

Since when have we ever stated we are even handed.

The moderators are not FAIR, no really we are not FAIR. Please don't waste our time fighting every decision made by a mod. No one has died from a bad moderator call.

[Nemesis]

Nice strategy. Challenging after someone has been banned. Classy.

His suspension lifted way before the supposed challenge and after he was on the board DrW Last Seen: Today, 05:10 PM. Which can be seen from his profile.

[Pahoran]

His suspension lifted way before the supposed challenge and after he was on the board DrW Last Seen: Today, 05:10 PM. Which can be seen from his profile.

Oh, is he free to respond again? I've been refraining from responding to his posts because I thought he was still suspended from posting. I did see his name reading one of the threads, but I assumed he must have had some kind of "read only" access. Is it safe to say there is no such thing?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nemesis]

Oh, is he free to respond again? I've been refraining from responding to his posts because I thought he was still suspended from posting. I did see his name reading one of the threads, but I assumed he must have had some kind of "read only" access. Is it safe to say there is no such thing?

Regards,

Pahoran

Nope he's been free to post in this thread since riding out the suspension.

[erichard]

Loaded it may be, but I think this is the crux of what makes Christianity so "terrible," as cinepro put it . . . and so mysterious . . . and so beautiful.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi Consiglieri,

God "allowed" his Son to be killed by evil men. That is not the same as killing him Himself. So I do not think your comparison is completely valid.

The commandment to Abraham, however, is a very valid comparison. Thank heaven that the first commandment was rescinded before it took place. And thank heaven that Abraham's heart was open to receive the second commandment. Had he hardened his heart because of the hard commandment given to him, and was not open to receive further revelation, think of the tragedy that would have happened.

Richard

[cksalmon]

Ah, I see now. You want to pull the question totally out of the context of the OP - which had to do with DrW's inane first point.

Just to clarify further, you want to expand it to all criticisms, of anything (including members), by anyone, not just be self-professed enemies of the Church, correct?

But, j, I didn't make the match between "DrW's inane first point" and all other criticisms. Pahoran brokered that very marriage, by asking if, indeed, there were "any valid criticisms, based on what we've seen." So far from extracting the question from its context, I was quite interested to pursue it to the full.

And, to ease your mind about "personal offense" at the hands of members, let me say that I am completely uninterested in that aspect of the issue. By all means, let us justifiably bracket all such considerations and deem them unimportant and irrelevant to the present discussion. So, we have no need to detain ourselves with whatever personal criticisms that might be made against members in the apostate's ward, etc. We will restrict ourselves to more weighty and universal issues than personal offense. So, let me set it down in this way: Are there any valid criticisms having to do with the history and/or theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that might legitimately compel a person to leave it?

I didn't think you would, coming from an alternate authority-bias. The smoke screen was to mask whatever real reason he had for leaving the Church - which was not on the list.

Well, at least you admit that you have an "authority-bias" set in some measure against my own. We are both, then, I suppose, biased in our appreciation of and with regard to the weight we assign to opposing authorities/authority structures. This is a good start for us to make.

As for the question of "smoke screens," in this you seem to presume too much and would actually have us believe you read the minds of others. Surely, this must be the case if you are able, as you claim, to deduce that the "real reason he had for leaving the Church" does not appear in his list of those reasons he claim inspired him to leave the Church. It is certainly no easy task to argue with someone, like yourself, who claims already to be in possession of such sure knowledge as would give the lie to DrW's claims on his own behalf. I wonder, whence comes this sure knowledge of his conspiring deceit? Since you claim to know that the real reason does not appear in the list, do you also know the real reason? Surely, if you know of a surety that the real reason is absent, then perhaps you would also be able to give us some insight as to what the real reason happens to be. Or, would you claim to have an enviable and infallible knowledge about what the reasons are not, but be ignorant of what it (the real reason) is?

Whoops, and now you've moved the goalposts back to criticisms-justifying-leaving-the-Church, which was what I had been answering all along.

I can hardly admit, your protestations to the contrary, that I've moved any goalposts in this regard. This is especially true in light of the fact that you admit that the issue you've been discussing all along has to do with, as you write, "criticisms-justifying-leaving-the-Church." Well, indeed, this is in fact the issue I've been discussing as well. So, it seems that, despite that you believe I have moved the goalposts, in point of fact, we're both still and have been up until now discussing the very issue you suggest that I've, illegitimately I presume, turned our discussion 'round to. If the goalposts have moved, then, it seems they have the curious habit, after having been moved, of standing right where we left them.

Well, then unless you move the goalposts again, the short answer is "no". I can't think of one.

I haven't done so, of course. As you admitted above, the discussion you've been attending to has to do with the validity of any reason for leaving the LDS Church. I, too, have been quite interested in that discussion as well. Since beyond both our posts the goal remains the same, I have to conclude that we have actually been attending to the same discussion.

You now answer that you cannot think of even a single valid criticism for leaving the LDS Church. Now we are getting somewhere. Although you led us 'round a bush along the way, you ended by answering the very question I asked of you. I am grateful for that.

And what liquid would you like to have in the squirt gun?

Why, only the sweet and sticky nectar of your sure knowledge, my friend.

The curious relational triangle of the Spirit, the influence of Satan, and free will is a somewhat deeper theological debate than I have time for on this thread. In a nutshell, just like there are people who are demonstrably children of God, and others who are children of heck - and examples of both can be used to bolster whatever position on either extreme one wishes to take - those tend to be people who have been "successful" at subordinating their free will fully to one side or the other. Most of the rest of us vacillate in between the two sides, being pulled, over time, towards one side or the other. In leaving the Church, some people simply get pulled by other interests or influences, and lose interest in the Church - perhaps having never really understood it. Others choose to move away from the Church, not by lack of interest, but out of opposition. In those cases, there is most likely some influence of Satan at hand.

What I find most interesting in this is your implication that those most extremely influenced by the Spirit of God are those whose free will is most subjugated to the influence of that Spirit. But that is another discussion, different than the one in which we are presently engaged.

Do you believe that Satan has the same kind of pervasive influence as the Holy Spirit does? Or in other words, are they constantly contending against each other for influence in our lives?

Here we are quite far afield from our initial inquiry. If indeed goalposts are asserted to have been moved, surely it is at this point and not before. For, I find no significant relationship between the question you've asked here and Pahoran's initial question.

Let us deal with the latter before moving on to the former. But, then you already have done so, in answering, "No. I can't think of one."

In this we are agreed. I had assumed that you would not be able to bring yourself to admit a single one, and you have not done so. Instead, you've significantly upped the ante in defense of your position by claiming that you yourself have a transcendent insight into the workings of DrW's mind. Unfortunately, you have not provided us with any positive expression as to the actual reason DrW left the Church--only that you possess the requisite knowledge to say what reasons definitely did not factor into that decision.

cks

[jwhitlock]

Well, at least you admit that you have an "authority-bias" set in some measure against my own. We are both, then, I suppose, biased in our appreciation of and with regard to the weight we assign to opposing authorities/authority structures. This is a good start for us to make.

It's an important point to make. Latter-day Saints should readily admit that their bias surrounds testimony or witness of the Spirit as their foundational authority for measuring evidence. The same is applicable to anyone making truth claims; they should state the assumptions upon which they are measuring evidence.

As such, when someone points to "reasons" as validating their leaving the Church, they also need to state the assumptions for authority they are using for presenting those reasons as evidence. When they do not do so, or infer that the "reasons" are self-validating, their claims are automatically questionable.

As for the question of "smoke screens," in this you seem to presume too much and would actually have us believe you read the minds of others. Surely, this must be the case if you are able, as you claim, to deduce that the "real reason he had for leaving the Church" does not appear in his list of those reasons he claim inspired him to leave the Church. It is certainly no easy task to argue with someone, like yourself, who claims already to be in possession of such sure knowledge as would give the lie to DrW's claims on his own behalf. I wonder, whence comes this sure knowledge of his conspiring deceit? Since you claim to know that the real reason does not appear in the list, do you also know the real reason? Surely, if you know of a surety that the real reason is absent, then perhaps you would also be able to give us some insight as to what the real reason happens to be. Or, would you claim to have an enviable and infallible knowledge about what the reasons are not, but be ignorant of what it (the real reason) is?

It has been quite interesting to observe the shallowness of opponents of the Church in characterizing my comments about DrW's list as "mind reading". It's been a quite common theme. However, it is an irrational response and ignores one vital point.

I have simply stated that DrW's list was not a list of the real reasons. I have not stated what his real reason was; in fact, I have stated that I have no real idea of what the real reason might be at this point. You fall into this same error with your comments; you seem to be unaware of the fact that it is possible to understand that a person is not being open or up front with what he is saying, without knowing precisely what is missing.

Perhaps you have read Sherlock Holmes at some point, and maybe you remember him stating (and I paraphrase) that when all reasons for something have been eliminated but one, then the reason that is left - no matter how improbable it may appear - is probably the real explanation for what is happening.

The same point can be applied to DrW's list. As we go down the list, we find (at least I, along with Pahoran, do) that the items on the list are not particularly credible in and of themselves as reasons for leaving the Church. DrW is not stating what his authority-assumption basis is, and he is trying to present the list in some way as being self-evident, which it is not (people with differing foundations of belief can reasonably and logically look at those items and come to completely different conclusions about them).

Hence, the only conclusion that I can come to is that DrW has some other reason for leaving, which he is not being open with. The list he presents is a list of rationalizations meant to justify his decision to leave; they are not the real reasons for leaving.

Perhaps it would be interesting of DrW came clean and we could examine his real reason for leaving, and see if it is a "valid criticism". But I doubt, for some reason, that we will have the opportunity to do so.

Hopefully that will cure you (though it probably won't cure those who love to froth) of the rather shallow "mind reading" accusation concerning motivations.

I can hardly admit, your protestations to the contrary, that I've moved any goalposts in this regard. This is especially true in light of the fact that you admit that the issue you've been discussing all along has to do with, as you write, "criticisms-justifying-leaving-the-Church." Well, indeed, this is in fact the issue I've been discussing as well. So, it seems that, despite that you believe I have moved the goalposts, in point of fact, we're both still and have been up until now discussing the very issue you suggest that I've, illegitimately I presume, turned our discussion 'round to. If the goalposts have moved, then, it seems they have the curious habit, after having been moved, of standing right where we left them.

Well, then, my verbose interlocutor, we'll let you plant the goal posts with the question concerning "valid criticisms for leaving the Church", which is somewhat different than "valid criticisms of the Church" which is another way you've phrased your question.

You now answer that you cannot think of even a single valid criticism for leaving the LDS Church. Now we are getting somewhere. Although you led us 'round a bush along the way, you ended by answering the very question I asked of you. I am grateful for that.

I"m glad you're grateful, although being led 'round a bush can be avoided by shortened and more direct prose.

Why, only the sweet and sticky nectar of your sure knowledge, my friend.

Then be careful, you may get what you ask for. When you do, you have some decisions to make.

What I find most interesting in this is your implication that those most extremely influenced by the Spirit of God are those whose free will is most subjugated to the influence of that Spirit. But that is another discussion, different than the one in which we are presently engaged.

Careful; sticky nectar at hand.

Here we are quite far afield from our initial inquiry. If indeed goalposts are asserted to have been moved, surely it is at this point and not before. For, I find no significant relationship between the question you've asked here and Pahoran's initial question.

Simply a response to the question you asked concerning Brother Lloyd's comment.

Let us deal with the latter before moving on to the former. But, then you already have done so, in answering, "No. I can't think of one."

I am open to discussing one, if one can be found. Unfortunately, the list at hand is not sufficient to that particular quest.

In this we are agreed. I had assumed that you would not be able to bring yourself to admit a single one, and you have not done so. Instead, you've significantly upped the ante in defense of your position by claiming that you yourself have a transcendent insight into the workings of DrW's mind. Unfortunately, you have not provided us with any positive expression as to the actual reason DrW left the Church--only that you possess the requisite knowledge to say what reasons definitely did not factor into that decision.

And, despite the rather biased rewording that you engage in here to give a negative impression, it almost rephrases the point I made above. I require no "transcendent insight", but rather just common sense and a little bit of deduction - something which seems to confuse and infuriate those on the darker side of things. I don't know what's in DrW's mind, but I do observe that he is not being open with us. I can also observe what he has given us, and deduce that the list is not self-evident in its validation, and so is not a list of valid criticisms justifying someone leaving the Church.

Perhaps you can understand the basic difference between "mind reading" and "deduction". It is apparent that others don't.

[cksalmon]

It's an important point to make. Latter-day Saints should readily admit that their bias surrounds testimony or witness of the Spirit as their foundational authority for measuring evidence. The same is applicable to anyone making truth claims; they should state the assumptions upon which they are measuring evidence.

Indeed. This would be a positive, but not, I don't think, a necessary step.

As such, when someone points to "reasons" as validating their leaving the Church, they also need to state the assumptions for authority they are using for presenting those reasons as evidence. When they do not do so, or infer that the "reasons" are self-validating, their claims are automatically questionable.

In the present case, it is surely enough to admit that "the assumptions for authority" extend beyond and are not coterminous with LDS truth claims. What? Would you have DrW state that his "authority bias" tends toward, say, the scientific method? Paganism? Atheism? Roman Catholicism? EV Fundamentalism? I dunno. You might ask him to clarify? If this is truly a sticking point, and it might well be, then, perhaps, you should challenge him in this regard. Perhaps he will be forthright, though I don't expect that you would expect him to be so.

Of course, no offense, but you mean "imply" rather than "infer." (Unless you meant to be reflexively ironic!) One does not generally infer one's own state of mind via positive statements. But, one might indeed imply, perhaps wrongly, that one's own state of mind with regard to a particular issue is equally accessible to one's readers as well as to oneself. A quibble, to be sure. But, I red-inked this common mistake so many times as a TA that I can't now, in good conscience, let it pass, despite the fact that I'm not grading your term paper here.

It has been quite interesting to observe the shallowness of opponents of the Church in characterizing my comments about DrW's list as "mind reading". It's been a quite common theme. However, it is an irrational response and ignores one vital point.

I don't find it particularly interesting at all, j. If, as you write, it has been a common theme, then perhaps you might ask yourself why this is so. I haven't kept up, to be sure, so I'll have to take your word for it that this has been a common complaint against your position. It is certainly mine. Goodness. When you, j, claim infallible knowledge that the reasons DrW listed for his leaving the Church are "not real," what else can you expect?

Now, to be sure, j, you yourself possess sure knowledge of the actual facts. I confess to knowing nothing of them. So, I, following wisdom, defer to your own sure knowledge, since I possess none.

Surely, as you have implied, it is rational to assume that you possess sure knowledge that DrW's listing is completely invalid and inherently deceitful. While you have, graciously, perhaps, refrained from enlightening us as to the "real" motivation for DrW's leaving the Church, you have informed us, in no uncertain terms, that his criticisms are "invalid" and, one must suppose, "unreal." If true, this is a good bit of knowledge to have.

I have simply stated that DrW's list was not a list of the real reasons.

You certainly have, j. And we thank thee for infallibly deducing such manifest deceit.

I have not stated what his real reason was; in fact, I have stated that I have no real idea of what the real reason might be at this point.

Indeed, you have not. But, given your infallible knowledge that his listed reasons are unreal, and false, we might be prone to call upon you as an oracle who can also enlighten us as to where the reality lies.

You fall into this same error with your comments; you seem to be unaware of the fact that it is possible to understand that a person is not being open or up front with what he is saying, without knowing precisely what is missing.

Indeed, what you label my error, I would have, heretofore, called discretion. But, I bow to your own infallible knowledge in this regard.

Perhaps you have read Sherlock Holmes at some point, and maybe you remember him stating (and I paraphrase) that when all reasons for something have been eliminated but one, then the reason that is left - no matter how improbable it may appear - is probably the real explanation for what is happening.

I'm certainly familiar with abductive (not deductive) reasoning. You're not engaging in it, by the way, by any measure that I can tell.

The same point can be applied to DrW's list. As we go down the list, we find (at least I, along with Pahoran, do) that the items on the list are not particularly credible in and of themselves as reasons for leaving the Church.

Your itemizing of the particularly credible is probably not, I would guess, an issue for DrW.

DrW is not stating what his authority-assumption basis is, and he is trying to present the list in some way as being self-evident, which it is not (people with differing foundations of belief can reasonably and logically look at those items and come to completely different conclusions about them).

Yes, but, per your stated convictions, when one disagrees with you, he has necessarily come to the wrong, unreal, invalid, conclusion.

Hence, the only conclusion that I can come to is that DrW has some other reason for leaving, which he is not being open with. The list he presents is a list of rationalizations meant to justify his decision to leave; they are not the real reasons for leaving.

So you have stated. I don't see the point in further discussion since the verdict is, for you, already in. You have "deduced" that his "real reasons for leaving" do not appear in the list. Perhaps he has even inferred as much. I dunno.

I require no "transcendent insight", but rather just common sense and a little bit of deduction - something which seems to confuse and infuriate those on the darker side of things.

Deduction from false premises, or in the service of circular logic, is inherently self-serving.

I don't know what's in DrW's mind, but I do observe that he is not being open with us.

A=not-A

Perhaps you can understand the basic difference between "mind reading" and "deduction". It is apparent that others don't.

Yes, I can. But, I confess, having attempted diligently to understand your meaning above, I would submit for your consideration that you, j, just don't have any "real" knowledge whatsoever of the difference between the two.

cks

[jwhitlock]

Indeed. This would be a positive, but not, I don't think, a necessary step.

In the present case, it is surely enough to admit that "the assumptions for authority" extend beyond and are not coterminous with LDS truth claims. What? Would you have DrW state that his "authority bias" tends toward, say, the scientific method? Paganism? Atheism? Roman Catholicism? EV Fundamentalism? I dunno. You might ask him to clarify? If this is truly a sticking point, and it might well be, then, perhaps, you should challenge him in this regard. Perhaps he will be forthright, though I don't expect that you would expect him to be so.

Of course, no offense, but you mean "imply" rather than "infer." (Unless you meant to be reflexively ironic!) One does not generally infer one's own state of mind via positive statements. But, one might indeed imply, perhaps wrongly, that one's own state of mind with regard to a particular issue is equally accessible to one's readers as well as to oneself. A quibble, to be sure. But, I red-inked this common mistake so many times as a TA that I can't now, in good conscience, let it pass, despite the fact that I'm not grading your term paper here.

I don't find it particularly interesting at all, j. If, as you write, it has been a common theme, then perhaps you might ask yourself why this is so. I haven't kept up, to be sure, so I'll have to take your word for it that this has been a common complaint against your position. It is certainly mine. Goodness. When you, j, claim infallible knowledge that the reasons DrW listed for his leaving the Church are "not real," what else can you expect?

Now, to be sure, j, you yourself possess sure knowledge of the actual facts. I confess to knowing nothing of them. So, I, following wisdom, defer to your own sure knowledge, since I possess none.

Surely, as you have implied, it is rational to assume that you possess sure knowledge that DrW's listing is completely invalid and inherently deceitful. While you have, graciously, perhaps, refrained from enlightening us as to the "real" motivation for DrW's leaving the Church, you have informed us, in no uncertain terms, that his criticisms are "invalid" and, one must suppose, "unreal." If true, this is a good bit of knowledge to have.

You certainly have, j. And we thank thee for infallibly deducing such manifest deceit.

Indeed, you have not. But, given your infallible knowledge that his listed reasons are unreal, and false, we might be prone to call upon you as an oracle who can also enlighten us as to where the reality lies.

Indeed, what you label my error, I would have, heretofore, called discretion. But, I bow to your own infallible knowledge in this regard.

I'm certainly familiar with abductive (not deductive) reasoning. You're not engaging in it, by the way, by any measure that I can tell.

Your itemizing of the particularly credible is probably not, I would guess, an issue for DrW.

Yes, but, per your stated convictions, when one disagrees with you, he has necessarily come to the wrong, unreal, invalid, conclusion.

So you have stated. I don't see the point in further discussion since the verdict is, for you, already in. You have "deduced" that his "real reasons for leaving" do not appear in the list. Perhaps he has even inferred as much. I dunno.

Deduction from false premises, or in the service of circular logic, is inherently self-serving.

A=not-A

Yes, I can. But, I confess, having attempted diligently to understand your meaning above, I would submit for your consideration that you, j, just don't have any "real" knowledge whatsoever of the difference between the two.

Pity. You don't appear to be making any effort to understand, nor to address my points outside of airy dismissals and repeated mischaracterizations.

I'll leave you to it; there's nothing to be gained by pursuing this with you further. What I've explained to you stands as is.

[AKS]

To the original question about Christine Jonson, I can certainly see the logic in her actions. If you are sure you won't make it to the CK and you know that you can guarantee your children entrance into the CK for eternity in exchange for your own damnation (which you assume already) then the murders follow. I agree that this the church does not condone such an act and therefore this is not a valid mormon criticism, but one can not argue what she did was illogical. Consig made some good points way back in the thread (I was thinking the same thing).