Are there any valid criticisms?

[DrW]

Isn't the atheist who kills her/his child to spare it needless suffering also using flawless logic?

Life is really hard for some folks, with little education or hope of improvement. Add into that mix some serious health issues, with no recourse to decent health care. Isn't it flawless logic for the atheist to spare those children from what seems like a life of sure suffering?

No, not necessarily. One can decide, for example, not to use heroic measures on behalf of a severely deformed fetus who has no chance at any quality of life.

In this case, one assesses the possible outcomes, and according to legal and moral guidelines, makes a decision. The decision is likely to be the result of a consensus among doctors and family members, etc. This becomes a value judgment, with a (logical) decision made based on facts.

The tragedy of the Christine Jonson incident is that she made her logical decision based on a fantasy.

[John Williams]

That's because of what and whom you choose to believe. And yes, I acknowledge that the same applies to me in my assessment of the man.

This has been the topic of another thread, I know, but our beliefs really are, in large measure, a matter of choice.

I thought you said it was because apostates become smarter.

[ttribe]

The tragedy of the Christine Jonson incident is that she made her logical decision based on a fantasy.

Actually, the tragedy is that her CHILDREN DIED! Furthermore, as has been shown countless times now, the root cause of her actions was NOT the "irrational" teaching of the Church, but her mental illness.

[DrW]

As far as the LDS church is concerned, I think that "irrational beliefs" definitely exist, but they are mostly benign (Satan controls the waters), or only modestly damaging (except perhaps the irreconcilability of homosexuals within Mormonism), like the guilt and self loathing I experienced for doing what most 14-99 year old males and females do occasionally, or semi-frequently....Ok, or thrice daily

I think such institutions that hold irrational beliefs are held accountable by others. They are called apostates.

Tchild2,

Great insight. (I was beginning to wonder what the apostates were actually doing here.)

Hope you don't mind if I use this quote sometime (with appropriate attribution, of course.)

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought you said it was because apostates become smarter.

They choose to believe they do.

[John Williams]

They choose to believe they do.

They just choose to acknowledge reality.

[Tchild2]

Tchild2,

Great insight. (I was beginning to wonder what the apostates were actually doing here.)

Hope you don't mind if I use this quote sometime (with appropriate attribution, of course.)

Why of course.

[beastie]

Dr. W has been severely criticized for his use of this case, and now he has conceded it may not be the best example of his point. I think he deserves kudos for that.

[ttribe]

Dr. W has been severely criticized for his use of this case, and now he has conceded it may not be the best example of his point. I think he deserves kudos for that.

I'm not sure "concession" is the word I would use. Sorry.

[jwhitlock]

I fear that you haven't answered my question, j. In all honesty, I don't perceive in your response at all an answer to the question I asked. My question was, again, How is it that we have come, per your learned interpretation, to the question of why "DrW" left the church, when Pahoran, it seems, to my possibly darkened and sluggish mind, asked if there were "any valid criticisms" of the LDS Church?

I confess that I do not see any necessary connection between the two. While I am happy to grant your distinction, I find it to be an answer to a question I did not ask. Given that, you might, charitably, understand my confusion at this point.

Nope, you just didn't like the answer I gave.

Invalid criticisms of the Church are often connected with people leaving the Church. Perhaps in understanding the claimed and real motivations of why people leave the Church, we can better understand why these particular criticisms are invalid.

Then again, the OP was in response to the primary reason DrW gave for leaving the Church, which is also another reason why I see a strong connection between the two.

[Scott Lloyd]

They just choose to acknowledge reality.

Incidentally, I recently wrote a Church News "Viewpoint" editorial titled "Priase to the Man." If you disapprove of the Ensign's treatment of the Prophet Joseph Smith, you'd probably be outraged by what I did.

For the sake of your own tranquility, do not click on this link and read my piece.

[Jeff K.]

I would be happy to respond if I understood your comment. Perhaps you could ask the question in a different way.

If, by chance, you are claiming that atheism leads to communism and thence to rutheless acts against humanity, I would respond by pointing out that such an assertion is silly on its face.

I don't have to claim atheism leads to communism, only that atheism within communism led to mass murder. Basically what you are claiming regarding a deranged person who happened to be religious.

[Jeff K.]

Tchild2,

Based on your points here and a number of other good arguments on this thread, I will agree that the Christine Jonson incident probably does not reflect a systemic problem in the Church with regard the doctrine of the celestial kingdom and the age of accountability specifically.

However, I maintain my position that irrational beliefs lead to irrational acts, and that the institutions who teach these irrational beliefs bear some responsibility along with the irrational thinkers who commit unethical or criminal acts as a result of what they are taught.

I would maintain that atheism, as a faith based belief system is just as irrational since it is presently unporoveable.

[jwhitlock]

Dr. W has been severely criticized for his use of this case, and now he has conceded it may not be the best example of his point. I think he deserves kudos for that.

His "concession" was accompanied by so many "buts" that he sounded like poorly tuned outboard motor.

His point is fundamentally flawed - and obviously so. An institution is not responsible for twisted personal interpretations of what it teaches, no matter how much an apostate wants it to be.

[Jeff K.]

His "concession" was accompanied by so many "buts" that he sounded like poorly tuned outboard motor.

[Pahoran]

This post is a response to an invitation (or should I say taunt) from Pahoren to â??defendâ? myself on this thread regarding my listing of the Christine Jonson incident as one of the (many) reasons I no longer believe in the teachings of the Mormon Church.

First of all a short recap: a few days ago, I posted 10 of my reasons for leaving the Church on a thread started by John W. entitled something like â??My Top Ten Reasons for Leaving the Churchâ?.

While folks were happy to accept Johnâ??s (somewhat humorous and lighthearted) reasons for leaving, they were apparently offended at my stated factual (and not so humorous) reasons.

Yes. John started a self-effacingly humorous thread, and you spoiled it by leaping in with your boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda.

A bit like a group of people sitting around sharing jokes about politics, and someone starts earnestly expounding his theory about how global warming is a conspiracy hatched by multi-national conglomerates. For some reason the humour doesn't last long under that kind of wet blanket.

I was immediately accused of being â??dishonestâ?. Shortly after I asked for an explanation of this unwarranted charge, the thread was closed. On another thread, ttribe again accused me of dishonesty, and of course Pahoran started this thread, again claiming I was dishonest.

Well, your argument does appear on its face to be a fundamentally dishonest one.

It is not honest to argue that the actions of a mentally ill person are indicative of the nature of his or her belief system. Mentally ill Mormons do crazy things; so do mentally ill Catholics. So do mentally ill atheists. So do mentally ill astronomers and truck drivers and basketball players.

The key to "Christine Jonsen's" behaviour -- the entire reason why she did something none of her neighbours, whether Mormon or non-Mormon did -- is that she was mentally ill at the time.

Likewise, it is not honest to argue that a clear aberration is somehow normative. The only case you have been able to find of a Mormon mother killing her children and explaining it in terms of Mormon teachings about the afterlife is a single instance from more than thirty years ago. This is not merely a deviation from normal Mormon behaviour; it is an outlier that no honest person would regard as indicative of the real influence of our beliefs.

The immediate ad-hominem attacks for stating personal beliefs based on documented evidence were entirely unwarranted and unjustified. It is disingenuous and even silly to claim that another individual is being dishonest in stating a viewpoint or belief. When folks like ttribe, Pahoren and others behave in this way, it serves to reinforce the view held by many in the non-Mormon and ex-Mormon community of Mormon apologists as immediately resorting to ad hominem attack when they feel threatened by the facts.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the quoted paragraph is 100%, pure and undiluted ad hominem. And your mind-reading is defective. I don't feel the least bit threatened by your propaganda; to the contrary, I rather like it. If this is the best argument you can come up with, then you are clearly stuck for valid ones. But you are also clearly intelligent enough to realise that valid arguments are better. So why don't you use any? The obvious answer is: because you have none.

Letâ??s look at the facts. The Christine Jonson incident did occur, just as I described it, in my community, only a few miles from my home. As many here have acknowledged, it was a horrendous act.

That's right. It was a horrendous act especially by Mormon standards.

But in fact you never heard about it at the time, did you? You didn't hear about it until Ann Rule's 2006 book. Because it was there that she came up with the pseudonym "Christine Jonsen" (with an E) for the woman. The contemporary local papers show her real name -- but you don't know what it is, do you?

If you had heard about the case from 1978 to 1980, you would have known that her real name is Tanya Adams; but you didn't know that name. You only knew her by the name Ann Rule invented in 2006.

Which means that the fact that you once lived close to the place is entirely immaterial. It had no influence upon you at the time that it happened, because you didn't learn about it until almost thirty years later. You have worked this backwards into your story as if it were a personal experience; but it was nothing of the sort.

In the face of all of the sanctions against murder, and the sure knowledge that she would not make it to the celestial kingdom, Christine Jonson was willing to sacrifice herself to insure that her younger than eight year old sons would make it to the celestial kingdom.

Yes. Mentally ill people's minds work strangely, don't they?

There is no more objective evidence for the CK than there is for the Islamic seven heavens or virgins and rivers of honey awaiting martyrs in Paradise.

We really want to credit you with being sincerely mistaken, DrW; but you make it hard when you resort to dishonest tricks. This is a dishonest demagogical dodge called "damnation by association."

The acts of Christine Jonson were based on unfounded beliefs and were analogous to those of radical Islamists who are willing to sacrifice innocents to show their obedience to Allah and thus secure a place for themselves in Islamic Paradise. In both cases, innocents died because of actions taken based on upon unfounded beliefs of irrational thinkers.

Which is the only thing they have in common. OTOH, LDS, Catholic and other charitable groups in Africa have saved thousands of innocents from gruesome deaths, and their actions are likewise "based on upon [sic] unfounded beliefs."

It makes not one iota of difference if Christine Jonson was depressed or distraught;

On the contrary, it makes all the difference, as you perfectly well know.

"Christine Jonsen" was a Mormon for years before she murdered her children. Why didn't she smother them at birth? Because her mental illness hadn't started yet.

And it was her mental illness that caused her to kill them.

the fact that the Church taught her that her children would go to the celestial kingdom if they died before the age of eight years was a necessary and sufficient reason for her to murder them, this according to her own testimony before a judge.

Necessary reason? Umm, no. Is it a "necessary reason" for all the non LDS parents who, for reasons of mental illness or otherwise, kill their children every year? No, because they manage to do so without that reason; therefore it is clearly not necessary.

And "sufficient reason?" Umm, no. Was it "sufficient reason" before she became depressed? No. It was not. Is it "sufficient reason" for absolutely every other Mormon mother who does not murder her children?

No.

The fact is that "Christine Jonsen" killed her children in a fit of depression. Her mental illness was the sole "necessary and sufficient reason."

Again, given Christine Jonson unfounded believes about the CK, beliefs that are doctrine of the Mormon Church, her actions were those of a self-sacrificing land loving mother who wanted only the best for her children.

No. They were the actions of a deranged mother who was not in her right mind.

And they lead to no valid conclusions about the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

Why would anyone claim that it to be dishonest of me to list this incident as having an impact on my decision to leave the church?

Because you claim to be a rational thinker. You continually throw your scientific credentials in our faces. Even with your thinking processes impaired by your anti-Mormon ideology, as they clearly are, you simply must be intelligent enough to realise how completely bogus your argument is.

As a reason for finally throwing in the towel, the Christine Jonson murders were no less valid than the Mark Hoffman affair, the Prop 8 fiasco, or any of the other scandals over the years that have reflected the irrationality of certain core Mormon beliefs.

I agree that those other arguments are also invalid. I'm not sure they are as egregious, though. For example, it is a perfectly understandable artifact of human nature that people who want something contrary to Proposition 8 are going to be offended by the Church's lawful efforts to stand up for its values in the public square. Quite wrong -- but still understandable.

The fact that Hoffman and Prop 8 resulted directly in members leaving the Church has been well documented.

Yes, ex-Mormons, just like other people, do make decisions for irrational reasons. Thank you for admitting that.

It is clear from comments on another thread regarding this incident that some folks here can appreciate the implications of the Christine Jonson tragedy as related to the unfounded beliefs of the Mormon Church, and some cannot.

Yes. Those who understand LDS life and teaching know that "Christine Jonsen's" actions have no "implications" about the validity or otherwise of our beliefs. The only "unfounded belief" in view is the belief that the actions of a mentally ill person can be used as a valid reflection of the normal impact of her belief system.

Those who claim that the Church teachings could not have been a prime or proximal cause of this tragedy point out doctrinal sanctions against murder. Islamic apologists do the same for suicide bombers.

Yes, still banging the old "damnation by association" drum, I see. All the most unscrupulous demagogues do this, so you are in good company.

However, the fact is that "Islamic suicide bombers" did not come up with the idea of suicide bombing by themselves; which is to say, it is not a product of Muslim culture. They got the idea from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eeylam, a group that arose among the Hindu Tamils of Sri Lanka; but the actual ideology of that group is primarily Marxist. You know -- "scientific atheism" and all that. And the LTTE are the most prolific and active suicide bombers around. (Or were until they were recently crushed. Hopefully their non-religiously motivated insurgency is at an end; we can only hope.)

Oh dear. There goes another beautiful hate-based stereotype, viciously murdered by a brutal gang of facts.

Pahoran, your point by point analysis and attempted refutations of my other reasons as to why I left the Church is typical of the response on this board to the inconvenient truths of secular Mormon history. Every one of my assertions has been documented by qualified academic historians. Evidence written by the hand of one victim herself (Helen Mar Kimball) exposes Joseph Smithâ??s sexual predation of a minor, for example.

As a matter of fact, all the "evidence" -- including Helen's own -- shows that she never had sexual relations with Joseph. She was sealed to him, and then went home and lived with her family, exactly as she had before.

Documentation for all of the reasons I listed is available for anyone who wishes to review it.

So it is; and your hate-based interpretation collapses at every point where serious scrutiny is brought to bear.

Your choosing not to accept or believe the factual secular version of Mormon history

My, what a fancy name for the ideological anti-Mormon version.

in the face of overwhelming documented supporting evidence reflects a mindset similar to that of individuals who, upon learing of the work of Galileo, still refused to believe that the Earth was not the center of the cosmos because the Catholic Church claimed that such beliefs were sin and would condemn one to purgatory.

Rubbish. You really do do all your "thinking" in these kinds of idiotic, superficial stereotypes, don't you?

They refused to believe Galileo because they were wedded to the "mainstream" science of the day. The Ptolemaic system was the science of the time, and was based upon Aristotle, not the Bible. The leaders of the Catholic Church had unfortunately got themselves taken in by the authority of "mainstream" science.

But the ideological anti-Mormon (per)version of LDS history is not better documented than the faithful version is. Your assertion is pure ideological propaganda, and as such reflects something uncannily similar to what you habitually denigrate as "magical thinking."

Regards,

Pahoran

[DrW]

I would maintain that atheism, as a faith based belief system is just as irrational since it is presently unporoveable.

Jeff K.

You have not been paying attention. The belief that there is a supernatural being who personally created and controls the earth is not supported by any physical evidence whatsoever. It is therefore irrational when compared to the alternative.

One the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence that the earth and the cosmos became as we now know it by natural means. There is no credible physical evidence for supernatural influences.

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.

A belief system based on physical, observable, reproducible evidence, is rational.

A belief system based on magic and the supernatural is not.

And if you think that atheism is a "faith based" belief system, you need to head back to a good school.

[DrW]

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.

[Jeff K.]

No your thought process is rather limited.

The belief that there is a supernatural being who personally created and controls the earth is not supported by any physical evidence whatsoever. It is therefore irrational when compared to the alternative.

One the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence that the earth and the cosmos became as we now know it by natural means. There is no credible physical evidence for supernatural influences.

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.

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.

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?

A belief system based on physical, observable, reproducible evidence, is rational.

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".

A belief system based on magic and the supernatural is not.

And if you think that atheism is a "faith based" belief system, you need to head back to a good school.

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.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

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

All in good time. As the thread originator, I have certain privileges WRT this thread; including setting my own schedule for answering things.

I will look at it after you have responded to my post of 5:15 today.

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.

While you are at it, please explain how you think it is honest to smear someone as a "pedophile or a sexual predator" in the absence of any evidence of sexual activity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Iâ??m completely clear on the fact that you donâ??t want your past behavior to be discussed on this thread, despite the fact that you engaged in, for all practical purposes, the same behavior that you discussed in your OP.

That's as truthful as any assertion you've made; that is, it is false.

I am about to open a new thread purely for the purpose of your vendetta, wherein you may bring all the spite you wish. I'm sure you'll have no trouble recognising it.

I will make this my last post on the topic

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.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

Nope, you just didn't like the answer I gave.

Invalid criticisms of the Church are often connected with people leaving the Church. Perhaps in understanding the claimed and real motivations of why people leave the Church, we can better understand why these particular criticisms are invalid.

Then again, the OP was in response to the primary reason DrW gave for leaving the Church, which is also another reason why I see a strong connection between the two.

j, I believe I can state with confidence, and without impugning your intelligence, that, for you, there are no valid reasons for leaving the church. Is this not so? If I happen to have misread your position very badly at this point, and to have attributed to you a position that you would deny, I can only promise to attempt to learn from your magnanimous correction.

I infer, perhaps wrongly, some necessary disjunction between "the claimed and [i.e., vis-a-vis] real motivations of why people leave the Church." I would submit that, if you have such a disjunct in mind, you are probably not operating from a position of wisdom with regard to the validity or invalidity of controversial criticisms of the LDS Church. This seems to me to be all the more true if, in fact, as I have postulated, you would aver that there are no valid reasons for leaving the LDS Church. You can see, perhaps, that the position I've attributed to you, whether rightly or wrongly, is not amenable to any correction.

I must correct you on another point, however. I can honestly say that I felt in no way injured by your alleged answer to my question. Of course, it was not an answer, but the deferral of an answer. But, no matter. Having been presented with it, I felt neither like nor dislike. I felt, in some small sense, perhaps, vindicated. But, that minor emotional event surely didn't rise to the level of any significant emotional preference on my part.

And, after all, I've already agreed with your assessment of the facts as they stand, at least with regard "to the primary reason DrW gave for leaving the Church," haven't I? Well, certainly, I have.

So, I admit that I don't understand what surely must be your feigned obtuseness with regard to the other matter I mentioned. That, or, I have pegged correctly your position regarding the validity vs. invalidity of reasons why someone might leave the LDS Church.

cks

[DrW]

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?.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?.

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.

[jwhitlock]

j, I believe I can state with confidence, and without impugning your intelligence, that, for you, there are no valid reasons for leaving the church. Is this not so? If I happen to have misread your position very badly at this point, and to have attributed to you a position that you would deny, I can only promise to attempt to learn from your magnanimous correction.

I infer, perhaps wrongly, some necessary disjunction between "the claimed and [i.e., vis-a-vis] real motivations of why people leave the Church." I would submit that, if you have such a disjunct in mind, you are probably not operating from a position of wisdom with regard to the validity or invalidity of controversial criticisms of the LDS Church. This seems to me to be all the more true if, in fact, as I have postulated, you would aver that there are no valid reasons for leaving the LDS Church. You can see, perhaps, that the position I've attributed to you, whether rightly or wrongly, is not amenable to any correction.

I must correct you on another point, however. I can honestly say that I felt in no way injured by your alleged answer to my question. Of course, it was not an answer, but the deferral of an answer. But, no matter. Having been presented with it, I felt neither like nor dislike. I felt, in some small sense, perhaps, vindicated. But, that minor emotional event surely didn't rise to the level of any significant emotional preference on my part.

And, after all, I've already agreed with your assessment of the facts as they stand, at least with regard "to the primary reason DrW gave for leaving the Church," haven't I? Well, certainly, I have.

So, I admit that I don't understand what surely must be your feigned obtuseness with regard to the other matter I mentioned. That, or, I have pegged correctly your position regarding the validity vs. invalidity of reasons why someone might leave the LDS Church.

cks

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.

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.

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