Are there any valid criticisms?

[Nyal]

Selek: It's nice to see the level of discourse is elevated by your participation. I have no doubt that your unfounded polemics will go ignored, as evidenced by your self righteous condemnation of Darin. I wish you luck in saving the "faithful" from the grasping claws of the reasonable. Beastie ALWAYS elevates the level of conversation well beyond your short stature. I understand, you feel as though you are drowning. Beastie is your superior in every measurable category.

Continue with the thread, and let's try to keep it clean, people.

[ttribe]

Selek: It's nice to see the level of discourse is elevated by your participation. I have no doubt that your unfounded polemics will go ignored, as evidenced by your self righteous condemnation of Darin. I wish you luck in saving the "faithful" from the grasping claws of the reasonable. Beastie ALWAYS elevates the level of conversation well beyond your short stature. I understand, you feel as though you are drowning. Beastie is your superior in every measurable category.

Continue with the thread, and let's try to keep it clean, people.

You shoot that filth out of your mouth and you say "keep it clean"? Sorry Nyal, that is utter hypocrisy.

[jwhitlock]

This critic believes that every large organization has people who do stupid things. The LDS church is no exception and Ms. Johnson's actions are irrelevant to the truth claims of the church.

Well, how interesting.

In another thread, where I posted this same list, with this same rationalization in the number one spot as referred to in the OP, you had the arrogance to condemn me for saying that the poster of the list wasn't being honest in his rationalizations. You and your cohorts over there came down squarely on the side of defending that very list.

My, my, my. The inconsistency of critics of the Church is nothing short of breathtaking.

[jwhitlock]

You may find your horizons broadened once they become teen agers. That having been said, I shall set aside sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek entirely and thank Scottie and Thinking for thier integrity in this thread. While we do not see eye-to-eye even on the color of an orange, and have clashed loudly and heatedly, I am happy to know that there are men such as these among our critics. Such is the consequence of letting me watch Cyrano before posting. And then, of course Beastly slinks in to soil the rug and offer a contrast to their courage.

I wouldn't be so quick about Thinking, given his tap dancing on this specific issue in another thread.

[jwhitlock]

You shoot that filth out of your mouth and you say "keep it clean"? Sorry Nyal, that is utter hypocrisy.

I've gotta laugh about Nyal and "keep it clean". This from someone (Nyal) who has informed us that there is nothing wrong with porn, and it's ludicrous to think that it does any harm.

[Nyal]

I've gotta laugh about Nyal and "keep it clean". This from someone (Nyal) who has informed us that there is nothing wrong with porn, and it's ludicrous to think that it does any harm.

Hey, I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with porn and it's ludicrous to think it does any harm. That felt good!

[jwhitlock]

Hey, I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with porn and it's ludicrous to think it does any harm. That felt good!

So, in keeping with the spirit of the OPs quoted rationalization "proving" that the Church is false, I can assume that you would rationalize that the Church is false, because it puts an emphasis on principles of morality and chastity, correct?

[Nyal]

So, in keeping with the spirit of the OPs quoted rationalization "proving" that the Church is false, I can assume that you would rationalize that the Church is false, because it puts an emphasis on principles of morality and chastity, correct?

Incorrect. The church is false because its claims do not, in my mind, match up with reality.

[selek]

I wouldn't be so quick about Thinking, given his tap dancing on this specific issue in another thread.

Your pardon, sir. My enthusiasm got the better of me. I yield the floor to calmer and wiser heads. And yet I cannot help but wonder- if even a broken clock is right twice a day, can we not allow Thinking his two brief moments?

[ttribe]

Incorrect. The church is false because its claims do not, in my mind, match up with reality.

Whose version of "reality"? Yours?

[jwhitlock]

Incorrect. The church is false because its claims do not, in my mind, match up with reality.

And yet you disagree completely with the Church's stance on morality and chastity - as demonstrated by your whole-hearted embracing of porn.

Frankly, I'll stick with the reality that resides in the Church, and not the faux reality concocted by the twisted perspectives of enemies of the Church.

[jwhitlock]

Your pardon, sir. My enthusiasm got the better of me. I yield the floor to calmer and wiser heads. And yet I cannot help but wonder- if even a broken clock is right twice a day, can we not allow Thinking his two brief moments?

Of course. Let me know when you identify those two brief moments; their occurrence has escaped me, so far.

How you doing? I've been entertaining myself pushing various ex-Mormon hot buttons concerning their motivations for leaving, and the resulting lathered-up vitriol, both here on this board and elsewhere in darker regions, has been gratifying.

[Nyal]

Whose version of "reality"? Yours?

No, the real reality.

And yet you disagree completely with the Church's stance on morality and chastity - as demonstrated by your whole-hearted embracing of porn.

Hey, more power to you. To each his own. I am not threatened or offended by your rejection of my value set.

Frankly, I'll stick with the reality that resides in the Church, and not the faux reality concocted by the twisted perspectives of enemies of the Church.

Nice little reality, isn't it?

[Mike Reed]

I was simply pointing out that Pahoran isn't exactly the best candidate to be expressing moral outrage over someone using a tragedy involving a mentally ill person to make a point about Mormonism. You see, when Pahoran, himself, used a mentally ill person who had also murdered his family to make a point about apostates, he neglected to inform readers that the murderer was, in fact, mentally ill.

I'll just share details from Pahoran's past use of a mentally ill individual to make a point against apostates, and let readers judge for themselves.

Pahoran, a hypocrite? Now there's a news-flash.

To save Pahoran the trouble of typing out another post, I offer this cut-and-paste from the last thread he started (where I too called him on his hypocrisy):

Pahoran responds: "I realise [sic] you'd love to turn this thread away from its topic and onto me instead; but it won't work."

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...0&start=200

[Thinking]

I wouldn't be so quick about Thinking, given his tap dancing on this specific issue in another thread.

CFR.

I never commented on this specific issue (Ms. Jonson) in the other thread.

[ttribe]

No, the real reality.

That seems to be the problem...since it's unlikely we will agree on what constitutes this alleged "real reality".

[jwhitlock]

Hey, more power to you. To each his own. I am not threatened or offended by your rejection of my value set.

Embracing porn is a "value set"? Try "lack of values". It's more accurate.

Nice little reality, isn't it?

The people are generally of a higher character, when they adhere firmly to the principles of the restored gospel.

[Nyal]

Embracing porn is a "value set"? Try "lack of values". It's more accurate.

No, different than yours. DIFFERENT.

The people are generally of a higher character, when they adhere firmly to the principles of the restored gospel.

I disagree with that notion.

[jwhitlock]

CFR.

I never commented on this specific issue (Ms. Jonson) in the other thread.

Really? Perhaps, then, you don't read thoroughly for comprehension before you spout off.

Take a look at your post here. You can note where you quote me as I refer to the "list of reasons", and you respond by accusing me of generalizations and not being specific - even though I link to a patently dishonest rationalization, which happens to be posted again in this thread, where you're now sniffing about it with a totally different tone.

So, do you think the person making this particular rationalization is being honest about his motivations for leaving the Church, or not?

Let's see how you tap dance around this one.

[jwhitlock]

No, different than yours. DIFFERENT.

Right. Porn is just a different set of values.

Got any more "gems" for us? How about:

- Drug dealing is just a different set of values.

- Child molesting is just a different set of values.

- War criminals just have a different set of values.

- Slave traders just have a different set of values.

Shall we go on? Perhaps you ought to take a little closer look at the company porn often keeps. It has nothing to do with values. And the kinds of rationalizations that those who criticize the Church often engage in are often as shallow as your claim that porn is just a "different" value.

I disagree with that notion.

Of course you would. And, of course, you're just fooling yourself.

[Nyal]

Right. Porn is just a different set of values.

Got any more "gems" for us? How about:

- Drug dealing is just a different set of values.

Yes. Like alcohol or caffeine. You don't have to smoke anything you don't want to.

- Child molesting is just a different set of values.

There is a victim. There is damage.

- War criminals just have a different set of values.

There are victims. There are damages.

- Slave traders just have a different set of values.

There are victims. There are damages.

Shall we go on?

Yes, if you feel the urge.

Perhaps you ought to take a little closer look at the company porn often keeps. It has nothing to do with values. And the kinds of rationalizations that those who criticize the Church often engage in are often as shallow as your claim that porn is just a "different" value.

Your opinion is valid, too. Porn is not for you, got it.

Of course you would. And, of course, you're just fooling yourself.

Perhaps, but we each have to make the best judgments based on the best information we can find.

[MorningStar]

Hey, I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with porn and it's ludicrous to think it does any harm. That felt good!

Porn harmed me. Nothing ludicrous about it. It's harmed many friends of mine including my friend's husband whose uncle used it to sexually abuse him and his brothers. A man who was addicted to it killed my friend when he caught him viewing it at work.

[selek]

How you doing? I've been entertaining myself pushing various ex-Mormon hot buttons concerning their motivations for leaving, and the resulting lathered-up vitriol, both here on this board and elsewhere in darker regions, has been gratifying.

Low and slow. There is a certain joie de vive involved in making prank phone calls to the lobby of the great and spacious building, isn't there? They're so cute when they foam at the mouth.

[Nyal]

Porn harmed me. Nothing ludicrous about it. It's harmed many friends of mine including my friend's husband whose uncle used it to sexually abuse him and his brothers. A man who was addicted to it killed my friend when he caught him viewing it at work.

So do you still look at porn? No? Then you stopped the harm you perceived. Good on ya!

Porn didn't make him molest anyone, nor did it cause a murder.

[ttribe]

So do you still look at porn? No? Then you stopped the harm you perceived. Good on ya!

Porn didn't make him molest anyone, nor did it cause a murder.

MorningStar is a woman...I doubt very much she was the one looking at the porn when she said she'd been harmed.