Smiley McGee

I prefer to learn my philosophy the old-fashioned way: act a belligerent a-hole on an obscure message board and have the amateur philosophers here tell me how stupid I am. Rinse and repeat. That said; I don't feel like I was critiquing your philosophy but the awkward intersection of the your philosophy and predominant LDS thought.

Waiting for someone to close a priesthood blessing with "All these things I bless you with, according to the placebo effect, in the name of ...."

Yep. My comment was flippant but my intention wasn't to engage in some whataboutism of the relative merits science vs. religion. My point is that the article doesn't just accurately critique science, but also religious behavior...it's the same thing just different subject matter. While I don't think the author is attempting to be deceptive, when the article is shared on a religious message as a counter to a "science vs. religion" thread, it tends to become ammunition for people who are unaware that they engage in the same thinking and behaviors as those they are criticizing. Yes, the mental models of science a useful for certain problems and useless for others. People mistake their mental models for the world out there. These models fail to describe subjective human experience (as words tend to do). But lest participants here think this is a science problem, understand that your theology is not God, it's your idea of God. Your theology fails to describe the subjective experience of God. You demonstrate an attachment to your theology that suggests you cannot discern between your mental models and the world out there, and this blind spot frequently causes you to deny the subjective human experience of millions. Your (valid) criticisms of people twisting science into scientism is equally matched by your attempts to turn religion in to garbage science.

Okay...show me a religion that doesn't worship their own conceptualizations of "God", and dogmatically so, and I'll agree that this is only a problem with science. Organized religion is not a pristine laboratory of human experience and experiential knowledge. It's exactly what you criticize science for being.

There is: it's 5% of a company's covered securities. It's about as bright of a bright line that you can get from the SEC. Materiality is relative to the investee since they use beneficial ownership filings to calculate figures disclosed in 10K and proxy filings. If you want to keep your portfolio a secret, don't purchase large amounts of publicly traded securities.

What's the difference between prayer and a conversation? Does being commanded to pray to God preclude trying to pray to anyone else?

One response I've heard to this idea is that religious people often seek the counsel and prayers of people they view as having special access to God. LDSs are uncomfortable with the idea of praying to saints but see no issue with asking the Brethren to include them in their prayers, or they may seek out those in authority for special help on a difficult matter. That a person is dead makes no difference. Your request of or reliance on a priesthood leader is no different than asking a saint for a little help.

Well sure, especially when members make posts on message boards proving they are too uneducated to recognize the boondoggle that is the church’s financial reporting.

You can't really compare the church's audit opinion to that of a US Corp, since, as is noted in its opinion, the Church opines on compliance with "Church approved" policies and practices. Without knowing what these policies and practices are, the opinion is useless. Contrast this with US Corps, whose audit opinion relates to compliance with GAAP, which is "generally accepted", widely known, and easily researched. "Material, materially, and materiality" have very precise definitions and uses in auditing. These terms are rendered useless in the Church's audit opinion since, again, we have no idea what the "Church approved" policies and practices are. Your typical audit opinion is not opaque or indecipherable to any of the millions of financial professionals who understand the use and significance of critical terms. Such a description does apply to an organization that fails to define it's policies and procedures. Also note that an audit opinion provides useful context for the financial statements and footnote disclosures presented, and to which the opinion applies. Again, not the case with the church's opinion, since it doesn't trust the audience hearing the "opinion" with the related financial reporting.

Don’t give yourself so much credit. I doubt most here esteem your opinion highly enough to be hurt by it. What you’re observing is people disagreeing that you have “the truth” and you failing to justify that you indeed have it.

Nah, it’s that no one trusts your ability to distinguish between sheep and goats. So the “whole point” of your post is useless.

We’ll have to see how things shake out. Perhaps you will find yourselves out of a church that no longer believes in a narrow-minded God with a preoccupation with an unsupportable historical narrative. In the meantime, stay strong in the face of all of the persecution you have to endure…must be really difficult to have people disagree with you.

Steve Jobs with Michael Fassbender.

So profound, thank you. When you have a spare moment, I’d love to know how you created the world in only six days.

delete