Are there any valid criticisms?

[Darth_Bill]

Didn't JS teach that those who died before 8 would be resurrected in the first resurrection and live during the millenium? They still would live their lives, just at a different time. Of course, this opportunity for change might also negate the "will go to the celestial kingdom" issue.

I could have sworn I saw that in "teachings of PJS" or something similar.

[Jason]

What is this, the "drag out the old grudges" thread? And then it was "the anti-porn thread" for a few pages too.

I suggest you guys tone down the personality conflicts or we're going to see another thread shut down before its time.

There are plenty of crazy ideas in secular thought as well. Social Darwinism and Eugenics have been the cause of (or at least the rationalization for) much misery in the world.

[AmazingDisgrace]

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.

If God sent "premorts" to be born to Christine Jonson because He had infallible knowledge that she would kill them, was it possible for her to choose not to kill them?

[LifeOnaPlate]

If God sent "premorts" to be born to Christine Jonson because He had infallible knowledge that she would kill them, was it possible for her to choose not to kill them?

If God has infinite foreknowledge of all that will certainly occur, it seems her choice would not be free in the libertarian sense of the word. This objection is actually quite interestingly overcome quite a bit by LDS thought, as well as what is called "process theology," however.

[beastie]

What is this, the "drag out the old grudges" thread?

Given that this was one of Pahoranâ??s points:

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.

it is entirely appropriate to demonstrate how Pahoran, himself, exploited a very similar tragedy for polemical purposes.

Amazing's point:

If God sent "premorts" to be born to Christine Jonson because He had infallible knowledge that she would kill them, was it possible for her to choose not to kill them?

And if she not to kill them, would they have still been predestined, so to speak, for the CK?

[krose]

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

...

I don't see anything logical in the declaration that whatever we do, God knew we were going to do that. Trying to make sense out of that is like trying to understand the Trinity.

--------------

As for "porn," how can you make a firm judgement about something that cannot even be universally defined? While Scottie may define it (as above) as explicit intimate relations in moving pictures, the lady down the street includes the window display at Victoria's Secret and any swimsuit picture, and to someone else it may include pictures of bare ankles.

[AmazingDisgrace]

If God has infinite foreknowledge of all that will certainly occur, it seems her choice would not be free in the libertarian sense of the word. This objection is actually quite interestingly overcome quite a bit by LDS thought, as well as what is called "process theology," however.

I'm not convinced that process theology's limitations on God are compatible with LDS teachings concerning His attributes, but I understand its appeal in dealing with some of the arguments against God's existence.

In responding to Nehor's argument at least, we're still working with the traditional concept of perfect foreknowledge, as he says that God, "knowing the end from the beginning, knows what you are and are not going to do."

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not convinced that process theology's limitations on God are compatible with LDS teachings concerning His attributes, [...]

They don't have to be. There are interesting similarities and interesting differences.

[Pahoran]

If the doctrine is correct...

...then a person could make a rational choice to forfeit their salvation but ensure the salvation of a child.

That is logical.

Terrible, but logical.

Well Cine, I disagree. The Mormon Church I attend has always emphasised the availability of repentance for everyone.

Here are some comments from a "post-Mormon" blog exploiting this story.

Why? Christine believed that she was a fallen woman, and that with her as a mother, her two boys had little chance of growing up otherwise.

The phrase "fallen woman" is a sectarian one, and denotes a woman who has committed adultery and/or taken up prostitution. There is in LDS thought, no such thing as a "fallen woman." No-one is any more "fallen" than anyone else. It is definitive LDS doctrine that the Fall affects all of us equally.

Just as it is definitive LDS doctrine that repentance is available to all of us, equally.

And Ms. Jonsen was not a "fallen woman" even by sectarian standards; her husband, not she, was having extramarital affairs, a situation that triggered her depression.

In accordance with the teachings of her Mormon faith, she believed that if her two children died before the age of accountability, they would automatically go to heaven. In fact, they would go to the Celestial Kingdom. Christine believed that she would be cast into outer darkness for their murder, but since she was going to hell anyway, she decided to at least try to save her children. Needless to say, this event was of real concern to the local Mormon community. I was greatly saddened by this tragedy.

But not saddened enough to resist the temptation to milk it for all the cheap polemical points he possibly could. (More on this below.)

The irony here is that, when it comes to the relative seriousness of sins, Ms. Jonsen has committed one of the worst possible for any mortal. However, given (and it is almost a certainty) that she was not in her right mind at the time, it is clear that her personal accountability was at least diminished by her mental state.

Which is not something we can say for the cynically dishonest exploiter of her tragedy, whose writing, while incoherent, nevertheless gives every appearance of a fully functioning mind; only his conscience is less than it ought to be.

Later on we get this howler:

A case in point is the widespread belief in the divinity and historicity of the Book of Abraham, as contained in the Pearl of Great Price. This unfounded belief persists in spite of the fact that the papyri from which the book was supposedly translated have been shown to be Egyptian funerary text from the now well known "Book of Breathings". The claimed source of the Book of Abraham, in fact, has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham.

Um, what "claimed source" is that? "Claimed" by whom?

Is the unquestioned one completely oblivious to the fact that the Church has never claimed that the Hor Breathings papyrus (J. S. Pap. XI and X) was the "source of the Book of Abraham?" That that "claim" is made exclusively, and only, by his fellow anti-Mormons as a straw man?

What many faithful Mormons donâ??t seem to understand is that facts matter.

Clearly certain anti-Mormons have trouble understanding that!

The article rambles all over the place, and about halfway down, it introduces a Muslim "honour killing" and juxtaposes it with the Jonsen murders. This is an attempt to create the impression that the two things are somehow comparable; they are not. Honour killings are, and for a very long time have been, a well-known event throughout the Middle East and the Subcontinent; they are a recurring artifact of a certain kind of culture. By contrast, a Mormon murdering a child to assure his salvation is virtually unheard of. Indeed, the Jonsen case is the only such event anyone -- including the hate propagandist -- has ever heard of. It is therefore clearly an aberration, a one-off, a statistical outlier upon which no honest person would ever found an argument as to the real nature of LDS life and teaching.

Yes, I know someone did; but no honest person would. No-one to whom facts really matter would be so brazenly dishonest.

Then more questions. Was the murder of Christineâ??s children the act of a mentally unstable criminal? Or was it the ultimate Christ-like sacrifice of a courageous and loving mother undertaken to save the souls of precious children? Did the teachings and scriptures of the Mormon Church lead this woman to kill her two children?

This is a softball question: the answer, clearly and unambiguously, is NO! They most assuredly did not.

The "teachings and scriptures of the Mormon Church" unanimously oppose the murder of children.

Every rational person, without exception, reads them that way.

No honest person finds any justification therein for such an act.

The tragedy of the Jonsen children was not brought about by anyone obeying the teachings of the Church, but by acting in direct opposition thereto.

And the claim under discussion is as brazenly dishonest as it is possible to be.

No sane person could honestly claim that any of these killings were morally justified. One can only conclude that unfounded religious beliefs were enabling, or more than enabling, in both cases.

This is a compound of two well-known fallacies: (1) False dilemma, which is a fallacy of logic, and (2) damnation by association, which is a dishonest propaganda technique. The fact is that Muslim "honour killings" and Ms. Jonsen's crime are quite unrelated to each other. (Facts matter, remember?) And with that fact before us, we realise that Ms. Jonsen's crime must be understood on its own.

If the hate propagandist has facts (which, we are told, matter) relating to Ms. Jonsen's mental state to hand, he has generously chosen not to burden us with them. So we are left to draw our own conclusions. The killing of her children is an act that was irrational on its face; therefore, we safely conclude that it was "enabled" by her own irrational mental state at the time. Did she subsequently explain it as an attempt to secure their salvation? Evidently she did. The correct response is, so what?

She committed an irrational act, fueled by her despair and depression. The reasons she articulates for doing so are essentially irrelevant. They tell us how her mind was processing information at the time, but that's about all. No correlation has ever been demonstrated between the prevalence of such acts and the content of the explanations given for them. This means that it would not have mattered if Ms. Jonsen had been a Presbyterian, a Catholic, a Buddhist, an atheist or a Callathumpian -- her mental state would still have proven fatal to her children.

These murders were easily rationalized based on Holy scripture, as interpreted by reasonable people, in the latter part of the 20th century. Two of the murders were justified by Mormon scripture and teachings.

That is, of course, an out-and-out lie. No reasonable person has ever interpreted LDS scripture to justify the murder of children.

Incidentally, the hate propagandist claims to have remembered the Christine Jonsen case when it happened, and claimed that it "saddened" him. However, this seems rather unlikely. He misspells the surname as "Jonson" when his source spells it "Jonsen." This is not that big of a deal, except that the book upon which he relies as a source actually invented the name; IOW, it is a pseudonym. The writer suppressed the woman's real name, as she is now free, but the real name -- which does not resemble "Jonsen" or even "Jonson" -- is the one appearing in the contemporary newspaper accounts.

And the fellow who was led to reject the Church's truth claims because he was so personally saddened by her actions does not know what it is.

Which means that he did not hear about it at the time (1978); rather, he read about it subsequently, in 2006.

With that fact before us, I doubt that even the noble Beastie could maintain that this argument is anything other than a most cynical, cold-blooded and calculating exploitation of someone else's tragedy for cheap polemical advantage.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

I don't think it's ever logical for someone to kill their children.

But isn't that what Heavenly Father did?

Did he not kill his son so that his other children might obtain celestial glory?

Not having read the thread in its entirety, I can only suppose somebody has brought up the fact that this action, illogical though it may seem, forms the basis of Christianity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

But isn't that what Heavenly Father did?

Did he not kill his son so that his other children might obtain celestial glory?

Not having read the thread in its entirety, I can only suppose somebody has brought up the fact that this action, illogical though it may seem, forms the basis of Christianity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Oh crap...seriously!? What a loaded comparison that is.

[jwhitlock]

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

There is a victim. There is damage.

There are victims. There are damages.

There are victims. There are damages.

Yes, if you feel the urge.

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

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

This has been an interesting exercise. If a critic of the Church stoops to this kind of rationalization in order to justify porn, then his rationalizations about why the Church is false are also suspect - just on principle.

[Pahoran]

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

Oh dear.

Mikey, I really thought you'd be able to recognise standard British spelling when you see it.

I guess it's just as well you don't continually brag about how amazingly well-educated you are.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

Oh crap...seriously!? What a loaded comparison that is.

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

[beastie]

But not saddened enough to resist the temptation to milk it for all the cheap polemical points he possibly could. (More on this below.)

The irony here is that, when it comes to the relative seriousness of sins, Ms. Jonsen has committed one of the worst possible for any mortal. However, given (and it is almost a certainty) that she was not in her right mind at the time, it is clear that her personal accountability was at least diminished by her mental state.

Which is not something we can say for the cynically dishonest exploiter of her tragedy, whose writing, while incoherent, nevertheless gives every appearance of a fully functioning mind; only his conscience is less than it ought to be.

I really thought nothing in these exchanges could surprise me anymore. But I admit, seeing Pahoran in a state of moral outrage over behavior that he has also engaged in - and has been noted on this thread - has actually surprised me.

Were you saddened by the story of the schizophrenic, Pahoran? Probably. Saddened enough to not exploit the tragedy? Apparently not.

And then this:

She committed an irrational act, fueled by her despair and depression. The reasons she articulates for doing so are essentially irrelevant. They tell us how her mind was processing information at the time, but that's about all. No correlation has ever been demonstrated between the prevalence of such acts and the content of the explanations given for them. This means that it would not have mattered if Ms. Jonsen had been a Presbyterian, a Catholic, a Buddhist, an atheist or a Callathumpian -- her mental state would still have proven fatal to her children.

Amazing. You used the fact that a schizophrenic who had been excommunicated from the church murdered his family as evidence that the "stories anti-mormons tell don't resemble the truth".

The fact is that the stories schizophrenics tell don't resemble the truth, and had he been still fully active in the LDS church, or any other religion - his mental state would still have proven fatal to his family.

I don't disagree with the points you're making. I just think it's ironic that you, of all people, are the one making the points. And I know you have a long history of being brazen in your polemics, but this is a new high - or low - for you.

[ttribe]

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

But a crazy woman who drowns her children in attempt to "save" them in the CK before they reach the age of 8 is hardly worthy of the comparison...under any set of circumstances.

[Pahoran]

I asked:

Pahoran replied:

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

Beastie,

because I'm such a generous fellow, I'm going to cut you some slack.

The argument was that "Christine Jonsen's" killing of her children was based upon a reasonable interpretation of LDS doctrine; IOW, that it represented a logical application of LDS teaching and, as such, is a valid example of the consequences of believing said doctrine.

Put simply: "Mormon beliefs lead to people murdering their children; the case of Christine Jonsen demonstrates this."

That was the argument.

Now, had I made the equivalent argument -- that Gino Manna murdered his family because that's what anti-Mormons do -- then you would have a valid criticism.

But it happens that I made no such argument.

My argument (are you still with us, Beastie?) was something quite different.

It was this: When anti-Mormons claim that the Church breaks up families, the facts usually show otherwise.

And it happens that my very brief mention of the Manna case did not mention Gino's mental illness despite the fact that said illness actually supports MY argument.

Is that clear now?

So, up until now, I'm going to accept for the sake of this discussion that you did not understand my position. (Frankly I don't see how, but that's not important; I'm being gracious to you.)

From this point on, that excuse is no longer available to you.

And this discussion is off-topic anyway.

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 â??the stories that anti-Mormons tellâ? do not resemble the facts????

No.

I object to a critic claiming that Ms. Jonsen's actions are a logical consequence of her LDS belief system (there is no such thing as "magical thinking," just so you know) while pointing out that Joseph Manna's self-serving claims about the Church "brainwashing" his brother are false.

Wait â?? is this one of those things that depends on what â??isâ? means?

No.

Is this an example of you doing all your "thinking" in cliches?

Now Beastie, if you are going to live up to your own marketing hype and raise the tone of the discussion, I suggest you refrain from off-topic derailments.

Unless you were indirectly supporting the criticism described in the OP, in which case I suggest you find the vertebrae necessary to defend it more honestly.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

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.

I'm finding that the reactions of those, whose motivations for leaving the Church are questioned, are quite instructive. There's a certain predictability or trend you notice after doing it for a while. It takes various forms of "how dare you question how I'm validating myself"; I guess one is expected to "respect" such validation, even when it involves various shades of dissing the Church and its members.

This time, the aura of being offended, combined with not-so-subtle character attacks (both here and elsewhere) have been gratifying - mostly because it appears that I'm hitting very close to the mark in being correct in at least some of my observations. Of course, the lack of response to specifics that I post - being superseded by emotional diatribes against me - is just additional evidence that those specifics appear to be off limits because they hit too close.

Going to the FAIR conference this year?

[jwhitlock]

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.

"Abyss of self-delusion". That's a great description!

[jwhitlock]

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.

Unlike adult porn, which is rationalized away to have no victims.

Unless, of course, you don't count the kidnapped sex slaves used to make some adult porn...

[Pahoran]

I really thought nothing in these exchanges could surprise me anymore. But I admit, seeing Pahoran in a state of moral outrage over behavior that he has also engaged in - and has been noted on this thread - has actually surprised me.

Were you saddened by the story of the schizophrenic, Pahoran? Probably. Saddened enough to not exploit the tragedy? Apparently not.

And then this:

Amazing. You used the fact that a schizophrenic who had been excommunicated from the church murdered his family as evidence that the "stories anti-mormons tell don't resemble the truth".

The fact is that the stories schizophrenics tell don't resemble the truth, and had he been still fully active in the LDS church, or any other religion - his mental state would still have proven fatal to his family.

I don't disagree with the points you're making. I just think it's ironic that you, of all people, are the one making the points. And I know you have a long history of being brazen in your polemics, but this is a new high - or low - for you.

Beastie,

feel free to actually engage my actual position on that issue.

If you are unable to do so, then stay on topic.

And if you are unable to do that, then I must ask you to refrain from making false accusations; difficult, I know, but I'm sure you can manage it.

As you perfectly well know, I have engaged in no "polemics;" I am attacking no belief system.

For the record, I feel no "moral outrage" about Dr W's obvious desperation at the lack of a valid argument against the Church of Jesus Christ. To the contrary, I'm rather pleased with it. I point out the contrast between his self-description and his actions because that contrast supports my position.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

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

I really have no idea why you would ask in your thread title "Are there any* valid criticisms?" and then proceed to highlight an obviously invalid criticism of the LDS Church. Why not ask, "Is this a valid criticism?" or some such?

It strikes me as a transparent attempt to paint "any" criticism of the LDS Church as similarly baseless and similarly absurd as the only criticism you're apparently interested in this thread.

You must recognize that, whatever you think or believe about this particular criticism, it is not representative of any and all "criticisms" leveled against the LDS Church.

Or, perhaps I've misunderstood your intent. Do you really mean to imply that, based on this particular criticism, it is questionable as to whether or not there really are "any valid criticisms" of the LDS Church?

I ask, my friend, because, if you do, it strikes me as an utterly absurd line of questioning. Not because the answer should be obvious to all (critic or faithful LDS), but because your question, if I'm reading you correctly, entails an obvious informal fallacy.

I'm not following.

Best.

cks

*emphasis mine.

[jwhitlock]

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.

And it had everything to do with why negative rationalizations about the Church to justify departure from the Church are dishonest. But evidently you were far too intent on playing some trite numbers game to take a look at the specifics I was posting about. Either that, or purposely ignoring them.

In any case, you came down squarely on the side of those who were defending the list - and making the absurd claim that we can't know motivations unless the ex-Mormon lets us know what they are. As if anyone who is rationalizing leaving by attacking the Church is going to be honest in the first place, anyway.

[beastie]

It was this: When anti-Mormons claim that the Church breaks up families, the facts usually show otherwise.

And it happens that my very brief mention of the Manna case did not mention Gino's mental illness despite the fact that said illness actually supports MY argument.

Is that clear now?

Your argument was clearly that the state of "anti-mormonism" is what causes them to tell stories that do not resemble the facts.

Schizophrenia is what caused Gino to tell a story that did not resemble the facts.

[Pahoran]

I really have no idea why you would ask in your thread title "Are there any* valid criticisms?" and then proceed to highlight an obviously invalid criticism of the LDS Church. Why not ask, "Is this a valid criticism?" or some such?

It strikes me as a transparent attempt to paint "any" criticism of the LDS Church as similarly baseless and similarly absurd as the only criticism you're apparently interested in this thread.

You must recognize that, whatever you think or believe about this particular criticism, it is not representative of any and all "criticisms" leveled against the LDS Church.

Or, perhaps I've misunderstood your intent. Do you really mean to imply that, based on this particular criticism, it is questionable as to whether or not there really are "any valid criticisms" of the LDS Church?

I ask, my friend, because, if you do, it strikes me as an utterly absurd line of questioning. Not because the answer should be obvious to all (critic or faithful LDS), but because your question, if I'm reading you correctly, entails an obvious informal fallacy.

I'm not following.

Best.

cks

*emphasis mine.

CK,

The background to this is: an apparently intelligent fellow (a self-described PhD-qualified scientist) offered this criticism as his number one on a "top ten" list. There weren't any drum rolls or musical stings a la Letterman, so I can only presume that he meant it to be taken seriously. The other items on his "top ten" were a fairly standard anti-Mormon laundry list, of the type the Evangel would (wrongly) offer as valid criticisms. But this was the top of his list, and the only original item there.

That's why I singled it out.

And yes, if this is the very best a self-described PhD-qualified scientist can come up with, then it does raise the question: are there any valid criticisms?

Regards,

Pahoran