Are there any valid criticisms?

[Deborah]

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

MS is not the one who looked at porn.

I also have seen how porn can bring harm to a family. It destroys marriages and damages the soul. Anyone who denies this is in the abyss of self-delusion.

[Nyal]

Anyone who thinks porn is harmful should stay far away from it. Anyone who thinks porn is fine should go ahead and partake. Both groups should keep it out of work, right?

[mikwut]

Selek,

I must speak up and in regards to your post regarding beastie. I havn't posted here in quite some time but I, a believing LDS, have had many delightful conversations with beastie and I find your characterization of her to rather, well, shameful. Those that scorned from the great and spacious building were scorning the faith of holding onto the iron rod, not simply having mature discourse regarding held beliefs and non. When we treat nonbelievers in that way I am simply afraid we are not justified by our scriptures, but unfortunately the opposite.

sorry, but my best regards, mikwut

[Deborah]

Beastie ALWAYS elevates the level of conversation....

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "elevate".

[MorningStar]

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.

Gee, no. I don't look at porn. Being shown my friend's parents' porn when I was 5 was enough damage for me.

The porn was used as a tool to seduce my friend and his brothers.

The sole reason my friend was killed was because the man wanted to hide what he had done from his wife. There was underage porn too.

[Nyal]

Gee, no. I don't look at porn. Being shown my friend's parents' porn when I was 5 was enough damage for me.

The porn was used as a tool to seduce my friend and his brothers.

The sole reason my friend was killed was because the man wanted to hide what he had done from his wife. There was underage porn too. Do you not think underage porn harms anyone? How long have you been looking at underage porn?

I resent that insinuation. My value set is based on the concept of self ownership. A sin needs a victim and damages. Underage porn has a victim and it has damages. You should be ashamed.

[MorningStar]

I resent that insinuation. My value set is based on the concept of self ownership. A sin needs a victim and damages. Underage porn has a victim and it has damages. You should be ashamed.

You mean kind of like how you assumed I look at porn?

[Nyal]

You mean kind of like how you assumed I look at porn?

I apologize for that. I made a stupid snap judgment.

[MorningStar]

I apologize for that.

Thank you. I take back what I said.

[selek]

How long have you been looking at underage porn?

My lady, I'll be the first to suggest Nyal be dragged out the corral and horse-whipped, but this accusation goes too far.

[Daniel Peterson]

I was once somewhat sympathetic to the notion of porn as a victimless crime.

No longer.

And I deal on a regular basis with porn addicts who are, themselves, victims. In a few cases, it has essentially destroyed them.

Incidentally, on what basis, Nyal, do you posit the moral value that something is wrong if it victimizes somebody else? I believe that, and I have no doubt that you do, too. But on what basis do you believe it?

[Nyal]

My lady, I'll be the first to suggest Nyal be dragged out the corral and horse-whipped, but this accusation goes too far.

MS is cool by me. She was poking me to get my attention.

Now about this horse whipping...

[Nyal]

I was once somewhat sympathetic to the notion of porn as a victimless crime.

No longer.

And I deal on a regular basis with porn addicts who are, themselves, victims. In a few cases, it has essentially destroyed them.

Incidentally, on what basis, Nyal, do you posit the moral value that something is wrong if it victimizes somebody else? I believe that, and I have no doubt that you do, too. But on what basis do you believe it?

My basis? Just through life experience and personal philosophy. Now, I am not saying that porn can't be harmful to people who don't accept it, it would be. A person should stick to his value set, not everything is a good idea all the time. But also what works for some, do not work for others. The original idea (way, WAY back) is that for SOME people porn is delightsome and good.

For me, a sin or a crime needs damages and a victim. It may not be a GOOD idea, but it isn't a moral failing, IMO. Think of a libertarian view of morality in general. Make sense?

[Daniel Peterson]

My basis? Just through life experience and personal philosophy.

Do you think that harming victims is wrong for everybody? Or just for you, because of your personal philosophy and your particular life experience?

If the former, on what basis?

[Deborah]

For me, a sin or a crime needs damages and a victim.

Sometimes victims don't even realize they are victims until it's too late.

[Nyal]

Do you think that harming victims is wrong for everybody? Or just for you, because of your personal philosophy and your particular life experience?

If the former, on what basis?

Yes, harming people is wrong for everybody. I base this on the notion of self ownership. To harm another human being is to deny that they own themselves, or is an attempt to destroy that sense of self ownership. Since I like to think I own myself, I like to respect that equal right of others. Outside of that, while an idea may be monumentally stupid, it is not evil or a sin. It is wrong for others to cause harm based on that same principle, they do not own their victims either.

[Hoops22]

I don't know the ins and outs of lds doctrine. However, I have considerable doubt that this woman's actions would be sanctioned, taught, approved of, or thought congruent to lds teaching in any way.

That aside, you still must account for the hard and fast doctrine that 8 years old is the mystical age of accountability. Sometimes (yeah, I'm really writing this) specificity is one's enemy.

[Scottie]

Could someone explain to me how porn is any different than prostitution? A girl is being paid to have sex with a stranger. The only difference is that a camera is in the room.

Sure, there are a few women who have chosen porn as a career and do quite well. But the majority of women are manipulated into it by desperation. While it is easy to claim they are making their own choices, I think we all know things are never that simple. I don't believe it is victimless. Nyal, if you were to substitute the word prostitution instead of porn, would you have the same beliefs?

That being said, I still say that Twilight is porn for women.

[Tchild2]

In a recent closed thread, one of the more fanatical anti-Mormons offered the following as a criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ:

First of all, the killer's crazed skewing of LDS doctrine was not "a perfectly logical interpretation." On the contrary, it was highly irrational, and clearly reflects her abnormal psychology.

Facts regarding Ms. Jonson are scarce on the Internet. But she seems to have killed her children in a fit of depression. This is a medical condition that is not associated with any belief system. People who commit irrational acts subsequently explain them in terms of their belief systems, but the fact is that the irrational acts are not caused by those beliefs; they are, in fact, irrational.

Had Ms. Jonson's actions been controlled or significantly influenced by the teachings of the Church, she would not have killed her children. Because the relevant teaching here is, "Thou shalt not kill."

And an honest critic of the Church of Jesus Christ -- if such there is, or ever could be -- would admit this fact, and not attempt to exploit such a tragedy for polemical purposes.

As was done so brazenly and dishonestly here.

Unless, of course, I have misunderstood the criticism. Perhaps the critic in question thinks that a true doctrine would be immune to being misunderstood by someone whose rational faculties are impaired. If that is his position, then I shall attempt to disabuse him of such "magical thinking."

Regards,

Pahoran

LDS posters do this all the time, and I have wanted to try it on just the right post...well here it is. YAAAWWWWNNNN!!!

[Thinking]

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.

I finally found your post with the link to the list of reasons. I didn't respond to that post. You and I were already engaged in our discussion. That post was your response to mysteryman. In that part of my post I was responding to your refusal to quantify "far too many." The reference to the "list of reasons" happened to be in the same paragraph and I happened to include it as part of your quote.

[Pahoran]

I came out of retirement just for this thread.

Pahoran - would you ever use the tragedy of a mentally ill man killing his family to try and make a case against "anti-mormons"?

Why no, Beastie.

As you perfectly well know, I would not.

As you perfectly well know, I did in fact refer to such an incident once to demonstrate how the facts do not resemble the stories that anti-Mormons tell.

As you perfectly well know, that is not the same thing.

And now, thanks to you, I can refer to it again, to demonstrate how anti-Mormons invariably misrepresent the arguments put forward by LDS apologists.

Thank you so very much.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

Edited to include the word some.

And now, thanks to you, I can refer to it again, to demonstrate how some anti-Mormons invariably misrepresent the arguments put forward by LDS apologists.

[The Nehor]

I'm going to try to show why this woman was not even logical with scripture.

I'm going to assume (as most LDS believe) that those who die before the age of accountability do so due to some Premortal situation. To avoid long explanations I'm going to refer to all those assigned to die before age of accountability as 'premorts'.

Let's say you're a parent who loves their child very, very much. You love them so much that you're willing to give up your own salvation and grossly violate the laws of God for 'their good'. You decide to kill your child. Now God, knowing the end from the beginning, knows what you are and are not going to do. So if he knows you're going to kill them He'll assign you a premort. As God made this decision before the world was you can't control it by killing your child. If they are a Premort they're going to die before accountability. If not, not. Your taking this action is not 'saving' them, that was already decided. All you have done is made a futile attempt to defeat the Laws of God by forcing him to do something which he already intended to do. This is contempt of the will of God and his Laws so all you've really done is damned yourself.

I think the logical course of action for someone contemplating the murder of a child is to take the advice God gave to such people: Put a millstone around your neck and throw yourself into the sea.

[beastie]

I asked:

Pahoran - would you ever use the tragedy of a mentally ill man killing his family to try and make a case against "anti-mormons"?

Pahoran replied:

Why no, Beastie.

As you perfectly well know, I would not.

As you perfectly well know, I did in fact refer to such an incident once to demonstrate how the facts do not resemble the stories that anti-Mormons tell.

As you perfectly well know, that is not the same thing.

And now, thanks to you, I can refer to it again, to demonstrate how anti-Mormons invariably misrepresent the arguments put forward by LDS apologists.

Thank you so very much.

Regards,

Pahoran

So using the story to demonstrate “how the facts do no resemble the stories that anti-Mormons tell” is not the equivalent of using the story to make a case against anti-mormons???

You object to the critic you cited using the tragic actions of a mentally ill woman to demonstrate the dangers of magical thinking, but you were justified using the tragic actions of an excommunicated schizophrenic to demonstrate that “the stories that anti-Mormons tell” do not resemble the facts????

Wait – is this one of those things that depends on what “is” means?

You would have been better off using Mike’s suggested response.

Ps- thanks, mik.

[sethpayne]

Do you think that harming victims is wrong for everybody? Or just for you, because of your personal philosophy and your particular life experience?

If the former, on what basis?

I believe Nyal is arguing for the "harm principle" as posited by JS Mill. I think this is a good starting place for public policy although it becomes problematic when trying to apply it to a holistic system of ethics.

I discuss the issue in a paper: Utilitarianism as Secondary Ethic.