Tim Ballard

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Exactly!!

IMO, I feel so many of these groups got started from the book "Visions of Glory" and Thom Harrison. And the recent war in Israel, apparently was mentioned in someone's vision, now not sure, I heard it on the video below and would need to listen for it again. Maybe that's why this family from Gilbert headed out of Dodge. This came out yesterday so they hadn't located the family yet, such good news. I know some were worried for the 16 year old's life in case he gave them trouble about going, what if they could take his life like Chad and Lori did with her kids. Thinking the second coming was coming and they'd be reunited. It's so far fetched but so is so many stories that are coming out. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Even better point. These fringy alt right dooms day groups seem pretty popular amongst many Latter-day Saints. Far more popular then Dehlin's and others Thrive.

Two sides of the same coin imo.  Both believing they have deeper knowledge and experience than the typical Saint, one leads to seeing less meaning in scriptures and other sacred experiences and the other is seeing more meaning, probably more than there actually is (tying it to politics, for example ).

 If I had to guess, from the comments we get on FAIR for people struggling with family members, the Dehlin/Runnels type is much more numerous. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But do you see this among more mainline Christian sects? 

A lot of christian sects allow for more movement between denominations (Protestant variety for example). I wouldn’t expect those looking for more to stay in that denomination that they are in usually, but go looking for one that fits their belief system.   It would be interesting to check the more end times focused denominations’ numbers and see if they are going up. I am not sure how you would check percentage wise as we would have to know their original denomination to compare how many stay mainstream and how many leave to seek a more visionary denomination (visionary is not meant as an insult here, I believe visions can occur and likely happen more than we know), end times/prepper focused. 
 

Maybe Navidad knows of such sects that are attracting mainstream Christians to them. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

On 10/27/2023 at 2:04 PM, Tacenda said:

Why has Thom Harrison not been disciplined like Julie Rowe, since he is the person in "Visions of Glory". And that book has wrought so much harm already.

He issued a letter apologizing sort of awhile back (did it get posted here or did I read it elsewhere a few days ago?), basically blamed the stuff that went too far on John Pontius as he didn’t see the final draft before it was printed and his own compassion for a dying man (didn’t want to make trouble for Pontius or the man’s family).  He can’t do anything about that book being out there still because the book belongs to Pontius’ family.  And then he said he and his family had suffered so much because of it and he wasn’t going to say anything more and everyone should just leave them alone. 
 

I think it was one huuuuuggggge cop out. He did more than just keep his mouth shut with Pontius. I think he should be making public statements denouncing the whole belief system and the book. But I don’t think the Church would excommunicate him just because he wasn’t willing to be more public about admitting he was wrong.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

yet, other than Tim Ballard (and I think the church statement was issued because Elder Ballard was pretty cozy with Tim Ballard and they were doing damage control) they do nothing. 

No, there are quite a few that have been excommunicated. A long list in fact. LDSFF basically places bets on how long before someone gets called in and kicked out once they start going public with their more extreme beliefs. 

[Teancum]

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

I have previously commented on the tendency for media coverage to emphasize this or that whackadoo's religious affiliation in news coverage when said whakadoo is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I don't know how common that angle is explored/emphasized when the individual is a member of a "more mainline religious" group.

Odd that you accuse me of not addressing sampling errors yet you do the same above. And it illustrated the LDS persecution complex as well.  Can you show us that Latter-day Saint "whackadoo" actions are covered more than such things from other faiths?  

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

Your question does not address the sampling error issue I raised previously, or the issue above (particularized emphasis on religious affiliation when the whackjob is a Latter-day Saint).

Yet you ignore sampling issues. So why should I believe your assessment any more than you believe mine?

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

I'm not inclined to draw significant conclusions based on popular news coverage, as there is often a "thumb on the scales."

Of course you aren't.  And I am fine with that. I think you are sort of sticking your head in the sand on a problematic side that LDS doctrine fosters.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

I assume you are familiar with, or at least have heard of, the Magdarame in in the Philippines, and their regular (as in every year) practices involving crucifixion, self-flagellation, etc.?

A different issue but yes I have heard of that.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

Self-flagellation was a fairly common public spectacle when I served as a missionary in Taiwan (see, e.g., here and here (NSFW)).  It was, I understand, a Taoist folk religion phenomenon.

This story states that "{a}llegations of sex abuse by ministers against children in the Methodist Church have been well documented since widespread reports of abuse first surfaced many years ago."

This story states that "{a} total of about 380 Baptist Ministers, Deacons, and unpaid volunteers have faced allegations of sexual misconduct, and more than half have already been convicted, according to an investigation by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News."

Again a different issue. If you want to explore the topic of sexual abuse among religious practitioners and leader and how Mormonism stacks up we can do so. Not sure you really want to go there do you?  I think most religions have elements of sexual abuse indidinces.  Not a good reflection of any of them really.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

There have been all sorts of "doomsday prepper"-style individuals and groups, many of whose extremism is heavily influenced by religious sentiments.  Stockpiling ammo, buying and installing underground bunkers, even practicing with weapons and hand-to-hand combat techniques. 

I did not say this was limited to Mormonism but I do think Mormonism and other religions that focus heavily on end time issues and literal Second Coming of Jesus doctrines are more prone to such extremes.

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

And so on.  

I don't know that we can say that Latter-day Saints are more prone to sexual misconduct, or to religious extremism (of the Daybell/Rowe variety) than members of other religious groups.  

I don't know that we can't say this.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

Isn't this a "man bites dog" story?

And outside of Mormonism.  I think all sorts of people are taking their moral cues and marching orders from sociopolitical sources and groups.

I don't disagree. And inside Mormonism as well.  I think Latter-day Saints that are prone to this tilt far right to the extreme.  

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, however, the leaders of the Church regularly counsel us that "Wise men, good men, patriotic men are to be found in all communities, in all political parties..."

Yes.....  It seems that some like to ignore that council.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

It's a common thing in pretty much all ideological groups.

Again, that sampling error thing.  The squeaky wheels get lots of attention, but are they really numerically significant?

I guess it depends on  how one defines significant. 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

.

I agree.  Julie Rowe is a prime example of someone trading on fear and trepidation.  But I don't see such things from the Church itself.  

I don't think the top leaders promote such things.  Is that what you mean when you say the Church itself?  I do think there is plenty in the doctrine that whackos latch on to as well as in things prior leaders have said in different time periods.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

And I think the reason so many of them "are good moral people" are because they listen to the Brethren.  The natural and foreseeable results of living the life espoused in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is "people who are generally decent, well-educated, hard-working, devoted to their country, not prone to the use of intoxicants or mind-altering substances, less prone to sexual profligacy," and so on.  

Yes ok.  I have agreed that most Latter-day Saints that practice their faith are decent people.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

I don't know what "disproportionate amount" means, and I don't know that your statement avoids sampling errors. 

No more than your positions above.   I think you know what disproportionate means. 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

The FLDS folks splintered off from us around what, the 1890s-1930s?  And they weren't really numerically significant at the time.  More recently we've had Denver Snuffer, but his movement does not seem to be doing much these days.

Historically there are numerous polygamist sects that have broken off from Utah Mormonism.  Are you really not aware of this fact?

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

In a Church of 17 million, seeing a few hundred folks to a few "{s}uch events" doesn't do much for me.  

Fine by me. And the problem children will continue to pop up, so to speak.  Whether it does much for you or not.  And be honest.  Likely at least 60% or more of the 17 Million are not active participating Latter-day  Saints so most of them don't give a fig about any of this.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

I don't know what this means.  

You don't know what end times means?  Really?  Latter-day Saint you know. The latter days, just before Jesus comes again. Tribulations, trials and calamities.  War and plagues and natural disasters and so on.  End of the world as we know it stuff.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

The Latter-day Saints focus on living decent and practical day-to-day lives.  

So what? I did not say they don't. That has nothing to do with the fact that crazies can find lots of things in Mormonism to chase down the rabbit hole.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

Sorry, but I won't go along with the allocation of blame that you seem to be proposing here.

No skin off my teeth. I am really not trying to prove anything. Just observing.  I think my observations are fair.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

The Church believes in many literally miraculous things.  It has its proverbial head in the clouds, but its feet remain on the ground.  The "fruits" of the Restored Gospel are best observed by watching people who follow the tenets of the Restored Gospel, not by watching those to materially stray from it.

Ah you want credit for the good stuff but won't own the bad fruit.  Got it. So typical.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

 

I don't know what this means.  And I don't know how you can quantify it.

You don't know what alive and well means?  The white horse prophecy seems a favorite among Mormon extremists.  Can I quantify it?  I suppose I could if I wanted to spend the time to do so.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

Julie Rowe was excommunicated.  So was Denver Snuffer. 

Yep.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

Neither was anything close to "liberal progressives."

I am not sure what you mean. If you mean that the progressive's offenses were worse than Rowe's or Snuffer's I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.  Snuffer seems pretty benign but yet has a movement that has taken many out of the church. Rowe was a fringer and I think she was an is pretty damaging.  Dehlin probably is pretty damaging to the church but even more so after he got the boot and currently.  Sam Young we pretty benign as was Helfer IMO.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

Again, you seem to rely heavily on anecdotal instances, which I think may be a substantial sampling error.

Boy what is this about the tenth time you reference sampling errors yet you do the same.  Anecdotes?  I only know what I see reported on.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

Am I allowed to post a link to a Mormon Stories Podcast and reference the guests that made the claim?

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

I think it matters a lot.  You seem to be arguing from the margins.  The natural and foreseeable consequence of living the life of an observant Latter-day Saint tends to be that people live good, productive, enriched lives.  Yes, there are some on the margins to take things too far, who have "a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2), who end up dabbling in things that can have destructive effects.  But the same can and must be said for all ideological groups.  

Can this be said for ALL ideological groups? ALL?  Can you say sampling errors?

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

Teancum: "As noted, by far most Latter-day Saints are good moral people."

"by far..."

Also Teancum: "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

"disproportionate number..."

Your messaging here seems pretty . . . mixed.  According to you, Mormonism is producing "by far" a "good moral people," but this "really does not matter"?  I would think that this should matter a lot.

Of come on.  Now you are being the attorney.  I can have a position that most and by far, practicing Latter-day Saints are good moral people and at the same time hold to the other opinion. I never said disproportionate is a large %.  It is not. So know it's not mixed at all and only an attorney seeking to score points would argue as such.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

This is simply not so.  Pres. Oaks has spoken against extremism on a number of occasions.  See, e.g., this counsel:

Also Elder Oaks:

Also Elder Oaks:

Also Elder Oaks:

Also Elder Oaks:

So has Elder Ballard:

Also Elder Ballard:

And Elder Cook:

And Elder Bednar:

There are many more such examples.

Ok fair enough but my guess is Mormonism crazies ignore such things.  Taking more severe action as to membership might send a stronger message. Just like that have done with the Dehlin's and Bill Reel's of the worlds.  At least that seems like that is what was hoped by giving such the boot.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

  

The Brethren have been quite clear on these things.  That some do not listen is unfortunate.

Extremely unfortunate is some cases.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

You are kind of proving my point.  You seem to be conflating sociopolitical ideology ("how many progressives...") with discipleship.

No not really.

On 10/28/2023 at 5:50 PM, smac97 said:

 

See also my comments about sampling errors.

Thanks,

-Smac

And see mine about yours.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Teancum

[ttribe]

On 10/28/2023 at 3:50 PM, Calm said:

No, there are quite a few that have been excommunicated. A long list in fact. LDSFF basically places bets on how long before someone gets called in and kicked out once they start going public with their more extreme beliefs. 

That place is so weird.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I have previously commented on the tendency for media coverage to emphasize this or that whackadoo's religious affiliation in news coverage when said whakadoo is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I don't know how common that angle is explored/emphasized when the individual is a member of a "more mainline religious" group.

Odd that you accuse me of not addressing sampling errors yet you do the same above.

First, I was not intending to "accuse" you.  I was intending to rebut your disparagements of my faith.

Second, my critique about media coverage about the Church was more of an observation and less a firm conclusion.

Third, it looks like you are attempting to leverage these stories to indict the Church.  I disagree with that assessment.

Fourth, I am not disparaging/indicting other religious groups the way you are indicting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  So no, I'm not really doing the "sampling error" thing.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

And it illustrated the LDS persecution complex as well. 

Says the guy trying to indict the Church because some few of its members disregard its counsel by becoming whackadoos.

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."
• "{T}he list of wack jobs using LDS doctrine to create delusions of grandeur and and up doing harmful things is not short."
• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."
• "{D}o you see as many wack job stories of extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior from mainline religious adherents like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on?  I don't but if could be I am just not paying attention."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Happens a lot in Mormonism.  Not so much in mainline religions."
• "Mormonism is an end times religion."
• "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."
• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

Again, I am not using this thread to disparage or indict "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on" based on them having adherents who go out and do crazy things.  That's your bag.  

I am not citing anecdotal news stories (which are perhaps creating sampling errors) about whackadoo "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on" to draw broad conclusions about these groups "incubat{ing}" such people, of such people "using" their respective teachings "to create delusions of grandeur and and up doing harmful things," to heavily imply that the Church fosters "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior" more than other religious groups ("a disproportionate number," as you put it).  

I am specifically declining to disparage religious groups or indict or inculpate them because some few of their members substantially distort and misuse religious teachings to justify their personal interpretations and extremist actions.  

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Can you show us that Latter-day Saint "whackadoo" actions are covered more than such things from other faiths?  

As I said: "I don't know how common that angle is explored/emphasized when the individual is a member of a 'more mainline religious' group." 

"I don't know" is the operative phrase here.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Your question does not address the sampling error issue I raised previously, or the issue above (particularized emphasis on religious affiliation when the whackjob is a Latter-day Saint).

Yet you ignore sampling issues.

I don't think so.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

So why should I believe your assessment any more than you believe mine?

My assessment of "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on"?  Again: "I don't know how common that angle is explored/emphasized when the individual is a member of a 'more mainline religious' group."

Again, I am not disparaging / indicting / inculpating these other religious groups by pointing to the excesses of some few of their respective members.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I'm not inclined to draw significant conclusions based on popular news coverage, as there is often a "thumb on the scales."

Of course you aren't.  And I am fine with that. I think you are sort of sticking your head in the sand on a problematic side that LDS doctrine fosters.

There is a substantial difference between A) a credulous, uncritical, knee-jerk acceptance of media narratives and characterizations about an unpopular religious minority, and B) putting my "head in the sand" about that religious group.

This is a bit unreasonable, as you can review my posting history and see that I frequently start threads about Latter-day Saints misbehaving.  A sampling:

• Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children
• Vice Article on Tim Ballard
• Another Update on DezNat 
• Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church
• "Vengeance is Mine" - Book by Richard E. Turley and Barbara Jones Brown
• Sovereign Citizen (and Latter-day Saint) Killed by Police
• (5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell)
• Murder-Suicide of Family in Enoch, Utah
• (4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Police Chief for USU Police Warns Football Team re: Sex w "Mormon Women" - Part II
• Racial Slur at BYU Game - Real or Hoax?
• Notorious Mormon Murderers
• Murder-Suicide of "Mormon" Family in Maryland
• (3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Former Primary Teacher sentenced to jail/probation for child sex abuse during sleepover
• Story on Brad Daw: "Mormon Bishop [] Champions Ayahuasca After Faith-Affirming Psychedelic Experience"
• White Nationalists (Some from Utah) Planned to Attack LGBTQ Rally in Idaho
• (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Church Faces Possible Tax Issue in Australia (Simon Southerton is involved...)
• QAnon Continues to Disturb (Trib Article)
• Former Doctor in Las Vegas Arrested for Terroristic Threats against Church
• Police Chief for USU Police Warns Football Team re: Sex w "Mormon Women"
• Clean up your act online, church tells Latter-day Saints
• DezNat in the News Again

I have publicly voiced concerns about DezNat (several times over), publicized news items about the (Latter-day Saint) police chief at USU, critiqued QAnon, commented extensively on the awful "Arizona Abuse Case," publicized murders and sexual misconduct by members of the Church, and more.  And yet according to you, I have my "head in the sand" regarding the state of the Church.  I don't think that is apt.  I have a pretty good track record of addressing the errors of the Church and its leaders and members.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I assume you are familiar with, or at least have heard of, the Magdarame in in the Philippines, and their regular (as in every year) practices involving crucifixion, self-flagellation, etc.?

A different issue

Not really that "different."  It's "extremism," isn't it?  In a "mainstream sect," no less.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

but yes I have heard of that.

And yet you aren't indicting the Catholic Church for it.  Why is that?

You indict the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it has some (relatively few) kooky people obsessing over survivalism and other distortions, but the "mainstream sect" you have repeatedly referenced gets a pass regarding the Madarame excesses?  Why?  

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Self-flagellation was a fairly common public spectacle when I served as a missionary in Taiwan (see, e.g., here and here (NSFW)).  It was, I understand, a Taoist folk religion phenomenon.

This story states that "{a}llegations of sex abuse by ministers against children in the Methodist Church have been well documented since widespread reports of abuse first surfaced many years ago."

This story states that "{a} total of about 380 Baptist Ministers, Deacons, and unpaid volunteers have faced allegations of sexual misconduct, and more than half have already been convicted, according to an investigation by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News."

 

Again a different issue.

Not if the "issue" is religious extremism/misconduct and harmful actions arising therefrom.

Not if you are pointing to "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on" and saying, essentially, "Hey, these guys don't have problems with extremism, just you Mormons."

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you want to explore the topic of sexual abuse among religious practitioners and leader and how Mormonism stacks up we can do so.

I am curious why you are indifferent to self-flagellation amongst Daoists (Daoism being a pretty "mainstream" religion in East Asia), and sexual abuse scandals amongst the Methodists, Baptists, etc.  You are not indicting these other religious groups in any way comparable to your efforts against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  To the contrary, you have held up several of these groups as not having the problems with extremism and distortion of religious tenets.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Not sure you really want to go there do you?

Feel free to start another thread.  If there is competent statistical/sociological/law enforcement data showing that observant Latter-day Saints are - to borrow your word - "disproportionately" represented - overrepresented - in instances of sexual abuse, I would like to see it.

I am curious as to your thoughts about the allegations of sexual misconduct against atheists like Lawrence Krauss (tenured professor at Arizona State), David Silverman (former president of American Atheists), David Thorstad (founding member of NAMBLA), John Maynard Keynes, Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine), and so on?  Are we free to attribute their misconduct to their ideology?

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think most religions have elements of sexual abuse indidinces.  Not a good reflection of any of them really.

Indeed.  

The question, though, is whether this or that religious group is culpable for that abuse, whether by teaching/endorsing it, or by turning a blind eye to it, or by being complicit with it, etc.

In my view, the Church cannot, by any reasonable measure, be faulted for its teachings, which do nothing but condemn abuse of any sort.  The Church also has substantial safeguards in place to reduce the risk of abuse during Church-related activities, as well as after-the-fact resources if and when allegations of abuse arise.

I don't think accusations against the Church of complicity hold much water.  For example, the Catholic Church has had much to answer for due to its history of moving around abusive priests, etc.  In contrast, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not have professional, long-term clergy, and anyone accused of misconduct is released from their calling.  The Church also runs into legal complexities with the Priest/Penitent privilege, but that is an issue that affects most religious groups, and requires a balancing test of competing interests that needs to be addressed.

The Church is more exposed (historically, anyway) to criticisms of not paying enough attention to allegations of abuse, but the Church has worked hard to correct this (training for bishops, the helpline, website content, over-the-pulpit counsel, etc.).

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

There have been all sorts of "doomsday prepper"-style individuals and groups, many of whose extremism is heavily influenced by religious sentiments.  Stockpiling ammo, buying and installing underground bunkers, even practicing with weapons and hand-to-hand combat techniques. 

I did not say this was limited to Mormonism

I did not say you said this.

But are claiming that such extremism and disfunction is "rampant" and "disproportionate" in the Church.  Based on news media anecdotes.  I am saying disputing this characterization.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

but I do think Mormonism and other religions that focus heavily on end time issues and literal Second Coming of Jesus doctrines are more prone to such extremes.

The Church does not "focus heavily on end times."

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I don't know that we can say that Latter-day Saints are more prone to sexual misconduct, or to religious extremism (of the Daybell/Rowe variety) than members of other religious groups.  

I don't know that we can't say this.

Wow.  Message received.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

Especially those that tilt more extreme on either spectrum of politics.  Heck just look at the right wing nut jobs that are melting down over the church's denunciation of Tim Ballard.  And how about during Covid?

It's a common thing in pretty much all ideological groups.

Again, that sampling error thing.  The squeaky wheels get lots of attention, but are they really numerically significant?

I guess it depends on  how one defines significant. 

Well, that's up to you.  You're the only one choosing to publicly disparage an entire religious group because of the aberrant excesses of some few of its constituent members (who are, in pursuing such excesses, contravening the leaders of that religious group).

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

{F}ear mongering among the extremists that have Mormonism in their background are very fear based in their motivation.

I agree.  Julie Rowe is a prime example of someone trading on fear and trepidation.  But I don't see such things from the Church itself.  

 

I don't think the top leaders promote such things. 

But you are, nevertheless, impugning the entirety of the Church because of the excesses of some few of its members, like Julie Rowe.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Is that what you mean when you say the Church itself? 

Pretty much.  Julie Rowe, Chad Daybell, etc. do not speak for the Church, and are not acting in accordance with the doctrines and principles espoused by the Church.

We are, nevertheless, being denigrated because of the excesses of these folks.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do think there is plenty in the doctrine that whackos latch on to as well as in things prior leaders have said in different time periods.

Which brings us back full circle:

You: "I think the more conservative and literal religions tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."

Me: "I think most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse."

I think the merits of a philosophical/believe system ought to be assessed by observing the results of adherents following its tenets, and not when some few adherents are disregarding those tenets.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And I think the reason so many of them "are good moral people" are because they listen to the Brethren.  The natural and foreseeable results of living the life espoused in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is "people who are generally decent, well-educated, hard-working, devoted to their country, not prone to the use of intoxicants or mind-altering substances, less prone to sexual profligacy," and so on.  

Yes ok.  I have agreed that most Latter-day Saints that practice their faith are decent people.

And yet you speak of "disproportionate" numbers of whackos in the Church.

You speak of extremism running "rampant" in the Church.

You say, publicly, that you "don't know that we can't say" that Latter-day Saints are "are more prone to sexual misconduct, or to religious extremism."

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

But I do believe if one scans the history of the Church from inception there is a disproportionate amount of splinter groups, individuals claiming special revelation, visions, callings from God and so on. 

I don't know what "disproportionate amount" means, and I don't know that your statement avoids sampling errors. 

 

No more than your positions above. 

Again, I am not denigrating religious groups by pointing to the excesses of some few of their constituent members.  The sampling errors, if they exist, are all yours.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you know what disproportionate means. 

Not in the way you are using it.  What metric are you using to determine proportionality?

Meanwhile, the fractured state of Christianity arose due to "splinter groups" separating themselves from the Catholic Church, and then from each other, and on and on and on.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The FLDS folks splintered off from us around what, the 1890s-1930s?  And they weren't really numerically significant at the time.  More recently we've had Denver Snuffer, but his movement does not seem to be doing much these days.

Historically there are numerous polygamist sects that have broken off from Utah Mormonism.  Are you really not aware of this fact?

From Wikipedia:

The Kingstons broke off in the 1920s.  My understanding is that the lion's share of polygamist groups tracing their origins to the Church go through that schism.

Do you know something I don't?

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

Many fringe groups have conferences that have featured nut jobs like Chad Daybell, Jodie Hildebrandt, Tom Harrison, Tim Ballard and on and on.  Such events are well attended and big money makers. 

In a Church of 17 million, seeing a few hundred folks to a few "{s}uch events" doesn't do much for me.  

 

Fine by me. And the problem children will continue to pop up, so to speak. 

Right.  The Church is to be blamed for the excesses of those who disregard and disobey its teachings.

Message received.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

Mormonism is an end times religion.

The Latter-day Saints focus on living decent and practical day-to-day lives.  

I don't know what this means.  

 

You don't know what end times means?  Really? 

I know what "end times religion" means.  I don't understand your usage of it here.  As I noted previously:

Quote

Quote

Mormonism is a literal religion. It has doctrines on end times that are pretty literal.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  Could you elaborate?  It seems like most religions are "literal" in the sense of claiming to have access to transcendent, but unverifiable, truths.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims this, but it is also a very practical religion.  The Word of Wisdom is practical.  Food storage and emergency preparedness is practical.  Encouragement to get an education and work hard is practical.  Counsel to minimize/avoid debt is practical.  Obedience to the laws of the land is practical.  The Law of Chastity is practical.  Rendering service to those in need is practical.

You are trying to justify your denigration of the Church by characterizing its members as wild-eyed zealots who endlessly obsess about "end times."  

Meanwhile, I live among the Latter-day Saints, and they seem to be pretty functional.  They go to school, get jobs, pay taxes, get married, have kids, and so on.  The Latter-day Saints who are observant of their faith - particularly when it comes to listening to the "Living Prophets and Apostles" thing - simply do not fit within your characterization.

And elsewhere you have acknowledged the generalized decency and functionality of observant Latter-day Saints, yet you also want to excoriate their belief system when some of their fellows take that system to extremes, distort it, disregard it, and so on.  

So your messaging here is not very clear.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Latter-day Saint you know. The latter days, just before Jesus comes again. Tribulations, trials and calamities.  War and plagues and natural disasters and so on.  End of the world as we know it stuff.

And yet observant Latter-day Saints are, even by your own measure, functioning and healthy members of society.  Yes, some of their compatriots pursue overzealous whackdoodle status, and that is unfortunate.  But again, I think the merits of a philosophical/believe system ought to be assessed by observing the results of adherents following its tenets, and not when some few adherents are disregarding those tenets.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The Latter-day Saints focus on living decent and practical day-to-day lives.  

So what? I did not say they don't.

And yet you are trying to indict their belief system because some few of its adherents distort and misuse it.

My point is to dispute that indictment.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

That has nothing to do with the fact that crazies can find lots of things in Mormonism to chase down the rabbit hole.

Again: I think most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse. 

I do not know what, if any, philosophical and belief system you presently follow.  But I suspect that whatever it is, "crazies can find lots of things in {it} to chase down the rabbit hole."  My point is that I don't think that phenomenon works as much of an indictment of that system.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Sorry, but I won't go along with the allocation of blame that you seem to be proposing here.

No skin off my teeth. I am really not trying to prove anything. Just observing.  I think my observations are fair.

I doubt you would publish similar "observations" about, say, Muslims, or Jews, or any of a number of other philosophical and belief systems.

I think there is a tendency to let familiarity breed contempt.  It's an unfortunate thing.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The Church believes in many literally miraculous things.  It has its proverbial head in the clouds, but its feet remain on the ground.  The "fruits" of the Restored Gospel are best observed by watching people who follow the tenets of the Restored Gospel, not by watching those to materially stray from it.

Ah you want credit for the good stuff but won't own the bad fruit.  Got it. So typical.

I reject the notion that the misconduct of zealots and extremists, borne of flagrant disobedience to central components of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, amounts to "bad fruit" of the Restored Gospel.

If a doctor recommends that an overweight patient adopt a reasonable and healthy weight loss regimen, and if the patient initially complies with that advice, but then turns to unhealthy and excessive measures (obsessive exercise, steroids, extreme dieting, anorexia, bulimia, etc.), I doubt you would say, speaking of the doctor: "Ah you want credit for the good stuff but won't own the bad fruit.  Got it. So typical."

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Boy what is this about the tenth time you reference sampling errors yet you do the same. 

Well, no.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Anecdotes?  I only know what I see reported on.

I get that.  Hence the sampling error issue.

There are more sources of better data about the Church than "what {you} see reported on" in "man bites dog" media coverage.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Teancum: "As noted, by far most Latter-day Saints are good moral people."

"by far..."

Also Teancum: "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

"disproportionate number..."

Your messaging here seems pretty . . . mixed.  According to you, Mormonism is producing "by far" a "good moral people," but this "really does not matter"?  I would think that this should matter a lot.

Of come on.  Now you are being the attorney.  I can have a position that most and by far, practicing Latter-day Saints are good moral people and at the same time hold to the other opinion. I never said disproportionate is a large %.  It is not.

Right.  It's "disproportionate."  What does that mean?

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

And the leadership, other than a few general statements, and  the Tim Ballard damage control move, are relatively silent about such things.

This is simply not so.  Pres. Oaks has spoken against extremism on a number of occasions.  See, e.g., this counsel:

Also Elder Oaks:

Also Elder Oaks:

Also Elder Oaks:

Also Elder Oaks:

So has Elder Ballard:

Also Elder Ballard:

And Elder Cook:

And Elder Bednar:

There are many more such examples.

Ok fair enough

It's actually a pretty significant point.  It certainly rebuts your statement that the Brethren "are relatively silent about such things," and it may even undermine your broader narrative about the Church "incubat{ing}" a "disproportionate" number of whackos.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

but my guess is Mormonism crazies ignore such things. 

That would be my guess as well.

And yet here we are, with you impugning the Church because some few of its members "ignore such things."

In my view, the concept of restored priesthood authority, the "Living Prophets and Apostles" concept, is second only to the Atonement of Jesus Christ in terms of doctrinal significance.  So when "crazies ignore" the counsel of living prophets and apostles - which you now acknowledge is being provided - it becomes more difficult to inculpate the Church for the misconduct of those "crazies."

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Taking more severe action as to membership might send a stronger message. Just like that have done with the Dehlin's and Bill Reel's of the worlds. 

I don't understand.  Tim Ballard was (apparently) excommunicated.  So was Julie Rowe.  And Chad Daybell (allegedly).  Lori Vallow will likely be excommunicated after her trial (unless it has happened already).

Loss of membership is the most "severe" thing the Church can do, and I think that's a good thing.  See D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

So what sort of "more severe action" do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2023 by smac97

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I was not intending to "accuse" you.  I was intending to rebut your disparagements of my faith.

Oh boy here we go again. Persecution complex, over the top hyperbole and thin skin warning to all readers.  Smac has just repeated is repeating ad nauseum his claim of my observations being disparaging of his entire faith and of all the LDS people.  This is his typical approach.  And he likes to repeat things like this. Over and over again. It is tendentious at best.  And yea you did say over and over that my observations I was using to make my point were prone to sampling errors.  But your observation that journalists pick on Mormonism more than other religious abberitions is somehow not a sampling error.

 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, my critique about media coverage about the Church was more of an observation and less a firm conclusion.

It seemed presented as more than an observation.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, it looks like you are attempting to leverage these stories to indict the Church.  I disagree with that assessment.

See I knew it was coming.  We will see indict and disparage repeated over and over bellow.  

No I am not attempting to indict the Church. I am noting that there are teachings in Mormon Doctrine that seem to lead people to more aberrant behavior and it seems to be more than other groups. I used the word disproportionately. That is not an indictment of the entire church. I noted that the church might want to be more forceful in denouncing and disciplining members the promote sich teachings and behavior.  You noted a few that they have so with. We can debate whether or not that is enough.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I am not disparaging/indicting other religious groups the way you are indicting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  So no, I'm not really doing the "sampling error" thing.

I never said you were critiquing other faiths.  And wow you used disparaging above and also indict twice.  Well done! 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy trying to indict the Church because some few of its members disregard its counsel by becoming whackadoos.

Indict again. 🙄

Is this how you argue legal cases? Do you think repeating things ad nauseum somehow get your point across?  Because I don't.  It makes you seem a bit obsessive.  Again my observations are not an indictment of the entire church.  But it may be an indictment of some of its doctrine and statements in scripture and by prior leaders.  And it certainly is an indictment of members who latch on to such tings, attend conferences that promote such things, post on message boards that are about such things, and so on.  I think such activities are dangerous and lead to more dangerous behavior.

 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."
• "{T}he list of wack jobs using LDS doctrine to create delusions of grandeur and and up doing harmful things is not short."
• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."
• "{D}o you see as many wack job stories of extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior from mainline religious adherents like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on?  I don't but if could be I am just not paying attention."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Happens a lot in Mormonism.  Not so much in mainline religions."
• "Mormonism is an end times religion."
• "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."
• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

Again, I am not using this thread to disparage or indict "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on" based on them having adherents who go out and do crazy things.  That's your bag.  

Yes I said all that.  What is your point? And I did not say anything about you "disparaging" other faiths so that seems a bit of a straw man.  In your comments you also complain that I only am bringing up Mormonism.  Well yes.  That is because 1:  I am still a Latter-day Saint.  And 2:  I have an interest in things  LDS.  So my focus is not nor will it be on other religions and ideologies.  Nor does it have to be notwithstanding your insistence.

 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not citing anecdotal news stories (which are perhaps creating sampling errors) about whackadoo "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on" to draw broad conclusions about these groups "incubat{ing}" such people, of such people "using" their respective teachings "to create delusions of grandeur and and up doing harmful things," to heavily imply that the Church fosters "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior" more than other religious groups ("a disproportionate number," as you put it).  

So what? Bully for you. I did not say you were. Your point is irrelevant.  You still claim Mormonism is unfairly targeted by journalists.  Your conclusion is no better than you think mine is.

 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am specifically declining to disparage religious groups or indict or inculpate them because some few of their members substantially distort and misuse religious teachings to justify their personal interpretations and extremist actions.

So what? Bully for you. I did not say you were. Your point is irrelevant.  You still claim Mormonism is unfairly targeted by journalists.  Your conclusion is no better than you think mine is.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I don't think so.

You don't think you have sampling issues but you think I do.  Got it.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

My assessment of "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on"?  Again: "I don't know how common that angle is explored/emphasized when the individual is a member of a 'more mainline religious' group."

Yet you claim Mormonism is treated more unfairly than other religions then say you don't?

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not disparaging / indicting / inculpating these other religious groups by pointing to the excesses of some few of their respective members.

So what?  Did I day you were?  Oh and  now not only am I disparaging and indicting.  Not I am inculpating. You seem to have pretty thin religious skin. I am not indicting the entire LDS faith by rightfully observing that there are doctrines and teaching that have been, and are used by some to take the ideas to extreme and dangerous levels. And this is not an infrequent thing.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is a substantial difference between A) a credulous, uncritical, knee-jerk acceptance of media narratives and characterizations about an unpopular religious minority, and B) putting my "head in the sand" about that religious group.

This is a bit unreasonable, as you can review my posting history and see that I frequently start threads about Latter-day Saints misbehaving.  A sampling:

• Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children
• Vice Article on Tim Ballard
• Another Update on DezNat 
• Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church
• "Vengeance is Mine" - Book by Richard E. Turley and Barbara Jones Brown
• Sovereign Citizen (and Latter-day Saint) Killed by Police
• (5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell)
• Murder-Suicide of Family in Enoch, Utah
• (4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Police Chief for USU Police Warns Football Team re: Sex w "Mormon Women" - Part II
• Racial Slur at BYU Game - Real or Hoax?
• Notorious Mormon Murderers
• Murder-Suicide of "Mormon" Family in Maryland
• (3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Former Primary Teacher sentenced to jail/probation for child sex abuse during sleepover
• Story on Brad Daw: "Mormon Bishop [] Champions Ayahuasca After Faith-Affirming Psychedelic Experience"
• White Nationalists (Some from Utah) Planned to Attack LGBTQ Rally in Idaho
• (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Church Faces Possible Tax Issue in Australia (Simon Southerton is involved...)
• QAnon Continues to Disturb (Trib Article)
• Former Doctor in Las Vegas Arrested for Terroristic Threats against Church
• Police Chief for USU Police Warns Football Team re: Sex w "Mormon Women"
• Clean up your act online, church tells Latter-day Saints
• DezNat in the News Again

I have publicly voiced concerns about DezNat (several times over), publicized news items about the (Latter-day Saint) police chief at USU, critiqued QAnon, commented extensively on the awful "Arizona Abuse Case," publicized murders and sexual misconduct by members of the Church, and more.  And yet according to you, I have my "head in the sand" regarding the state of the Church.  I don't think that is apt.  I have a pretty good track record of addressing the errors of the Church and its leaders and members.

Wow!  That is quite the list.  Thank you for helping to make my point.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

And yet you aren't indicting the Catholic Church for it.  Why is that?

 Because my interest is in how Mormonism influences such things we are discussing.  Not Catholicism. To point out the tendencies of same members of the Church to carry out extremism based on doctrines found in Mormonism does not require me to do the same or all other religions.  It is a silly argument for you to make. 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

You indict the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it has some (relatively few) kooky people obsessing over survivalism and other distortions

It is more that a few simply obsessing over survivalism.  And you must know that based on your long list above.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

but the "mainstream sect" you have repeatedly referenced gets a pass regarding the Madarame excesses?  Why?  

Because I am interested in the issue as it relates to Mormonism.  I do not need to highlight the others.  Why should I?

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not if the "issue" is religious extremism/misconduct and harmful actions arising therefrom.

Not if you are pointing to "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on" and saying, essentially, "Hey, these guys don't have problems with extremism, just you Mormons."

I am curious why you are indifferent to self-flagellation amongst Daoists (Daoism being a pretty "mainstream" religion in East Asia), and sexual abuse scandals amongst the Methodists, Baptists, etc.  You are not indicting these other religious groups in any way comparable to your efforts against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  To the contrary, you have held up several of these groups as not having the problems with extremism and distortion of religious tenets.

 

 

Yawn.....

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Feel free to start another thread.  If there is competent statistical/sociological/law enforcement data showing that observant Latter-day Saints are - to borrow your word - "disproportionately" represented - overrepresented - in instances of sexual abuse, I would like to see it.

You brought up sexual abuse not me.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to your thoughts about the allegations of sexual misconduct against atheists like Lawrence Krauss (tenured professor at Arizona State), David Silverman (former president of American Atheists), David Thorstad (founding member of NAMBLA), John Maynard Keynes, Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine), and so on?  Are we free to attribute their misconduct to their ideology?

Straw man. I have not been discussing sexual abuse by members of the Church so I see no need to pursue it.  As for the persons above, if it can be shown that their sexual misconduct is tied to their ideology then sure. That should be explored. My guess is in cannot be.  

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

But are claiming that such extremism and disfunction is "rampant" and "disproportionate" in the Church.  Based on news media anecdotes.  I am saying disputing this characterization.

Obviously.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church does not "focus heavily on end times."

Yes it has and does.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Well, that's up to you.  You're the only one choosing to publicly disparage an entire religious group because of the aberrant excesses of some few of its constituent members (who are, in pursuing such excesses, contravening the leaders of that religious group).

Yawn....

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

But you are, nevertheless, impugning the entirety of the Church because of the excesses of some few of its members, like Julie Rowe.

No I am not NEW WORD ALERT..impugning the entire church.  Your constant whining these words is rather ludicrous.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pretty much.  Julie Rowe, Chad Daybell, etc. do not speak for the Church, and are not acting in accordance with the doctrines and principles espoused by the Church.

Never said the speak for the church nor their running down a rabbit hole with their ideas was doctrine of the church.  But their beginnings started with doctrine of the church that was then warped and distorted.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are, nevertheless, being denigrated because of the excesses of these folks.

Yawn.....

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which brings us back full circle:

You: "I think the more conservative and literal religions tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."

Yep.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Me: "I think most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse."

Ok.  All are to some extent.  The extent is what we are talking about.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the merits of a philosophical/believe system ought to be assessed by observing the results of adherents following its tenets, and not when some few adherents are disregarding those tenets.

Good for you. I think when a religions, any religion, has adherents that go off the deep end, and not infrequently, it needs to address such things and do everything they can to prevent it. Even if it means repudiating books, people, prior teachings by its leaders and so on.

 

I will try to address the rest below later.  But this is becoming tedious. And really all we have from you below is more of the above.  

 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet you speak of "disproportionate" numbers of whackos in the Church.

You speak of extremism running "rampant" in the Church.

You say, publicly, that you "don't know that we can't say" that Latter-day Saints are "are more prone to sexual misconduct, or to religious extremism."

Again, I am not denigrating religious groups by pointing to the excesses of some few of their constituent members.  The sampling errors, if they exist, are all yours.

Not in the way you are using it.  What metric are you using to determine proportionality?

Meanwhile, the fractured state of Christianity arose due to "splinter groups" separating themselves from the Catholic Church, and then from each other, and on and on and on.

From Wikipedia:

The Kingstons broke off in the 1920s.  My understanding is that the lion's share of polygamist groups tracing their origins to the Church go through that schism.

Do you know something I don't?

Right.  The Church is to be blamed for the excesses of those who disregard and disobey its teachings.

Message received.

I know what "end times religion" means.  I don't understand your usage of it here.  As I noted previously:

You are trying to justify your denigration of the Church by characterizing its members as wild-eyed zealots who endlessly obsess about "end times."  

Meanwhile, I live among the Latter-day Saints, and they seem to be pretty functional.  They go to school, get jobs, pay taxes, get married, have kids, and so on.  The Latter-day Saints who are observant of their faith - particularly when it comes to listening to the "Living Prophets and Apostles" thing - simply do not fit within your characterization.

And elsewhere you have acknowledged the generalized decency and functionality of observant Latter-day Saints, yet you also want to excoriate their belief system when some of their fellows take that system to extremes, distort it, disregard it, and so on.  

So your messaging here is not very clear.

And yet observant Latter-day Saints are, even by your own measure, functioning and healthy members of society.  Yes, some of their compatriots pursue overzealous whackdoodle status, and that is unfortunate.  But again, I think the merits of a philosophical/believe system ought to be assessed by observing the results of adherents following its tenets, and not when some few adherents are disregarding those tenets.

And yet you are trying to indict their belief system because some few of its adherents distort and misuse it.

My point is to dispute that indictment.

Again: I think most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse. 

I do not know what, if any, philosophical and belief system you presently follow.  But I suspect that whatever it is, "crazies can find lots of things in {it} to chase down the rabbit hole."  My point is that I don't think that phenomenon works as much of an indictment of that system.

I doubt you would publish similar "observations" about, say, Muslims, or Jews, or any of a number of other philosophical and belief systems.

I think there is a tendency to let familiarity breed contempt.  It's an unfortunate thing.

I reject the notion that the misconduct of zealots and extremists, borne of flagrant disobedience to central components of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, amounts to "bad fruit" of the Restored Gospel.

If a doctor recommends that an overweight patient adopt a reasonable and healthy weight loss regimen, and if the patient initially complies with that advice, but then turns to unhealthy and excessive measures (obsessive exercise, steroids, extreme dieting, anorexia, bulimia, etc.), I doubt you would say, speaking of the doctor: "Ah you want credit for the good stuff but won't own the bad fruit.  Got it. So typical."

Well, no.

I get that.  Hence the sampling error issue.

There are more sources of better data about the Church than "what {you} see reported on" in "man bites dog" media coverage.

Right.  It's "disproportionate."  What does that mean?

It's actually a pretty significant point.  It certainly rebuts your statement that the Brethren "are relatively silent about such things," and it may even undermine your broader narrative about the Church "incubat{ing}" a "disproportionate" number of whackos.

That would be my guess as well.

And yet here we are, with you impugning the Church because some few of its members "ignore such things."

In my view, the concept of restored priesthood authority, the "Living Prophets and Apostles" concept, is second only to the Atonement of Jesus Christ in terms of doctrinal significance.  So when "crazies ignore" the counsel of living prophets and apostles - which you now acknowledge is being provided - it becomes more difficult to inculpate the Church for the misconduct of those "crazies."

I don't understand.  Tim Ballard was (apparently) excommunicated.  So was Julie Rowe.  And Chad Daybell (allegedly).  Lori Vallow will likely be excommunicated after her trial (unless it has happened already).

Loss of membership is the most "severe" thing the Church can do, and I think that's a good thing.  See D&C 134:10:

So what sort of "more severe action" do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh boy here we go again. Persecution complex, over the top hyperbole and thin skin warning to all readers. 

Quit railing against the Church and its members and then taunting those of us who rebut your calumnies.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Third, it looks like you are attempting to leverage these stories to indict the Church.  I disagree with that assessment.

See I knew it was coming.  We will see indict and disparage repeated over and over bellow.

If the shoe fits...

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

No I am not attempting to indict the Church.

You are doing nothing but attempting to do this.  That you are not doing it well is another story.

"indict" = "to charge with an offense or crime; accuse of wrongdoing; incriminate; condemn."

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."
• "{T}he list of wack jobs using LDS doctrine to create delusions of grandeur and and up doing harmful things is not short."
• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."
• "{D}o you see as many wack job stories of extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior from mainline religious adherents like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on?  I don't but if could be I am just not paying attention."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Happens a lot in Mormonism.  Not so much in mainline religions."
• "Mormonism is an end times religion."
• "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."
• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

You are criticizing the Church.  You are certainly not complimenting it.  You are not clinically describing it.  You are finding fault with it. You are accusing it of wrongdoing.  You are condemning it.

You are characterizing it as "incubating" extremism "and even murderous and very bad behavior," of having "a disproportionate number" of its members engaging in such "extremes."

So spare us the pearl-clutching routine.  It's not even that big a deal.  You've said nasty and offensive these about us and to us for years now.  This thread is not particularly unique in that regard.  But yeah, you are trying to cast blame on, to "indict," the Church because some few of its adherents disregard and even directly contravene its central tenets by engaging in extremism.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am noting that there are teachings in Mormon Doctrine that seem to lead people to more aberrant behavior and it seems to be more than other groups. I used the word disproportionately. That is not an indictment of the entire church.

Your various and repeated references to "Mormonism" are not a reference to "the entire church?"  Huh.  They sure come across that way.

"I think the more conservative and literal religions {such as Mormonism} tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."

"I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."

"Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

Observant Latter-day Saints are, even by your own measure, functioning and healthy members of society.  I'm glad we can agree on that.  But you nevertheless are indicting the Church in its entirety ("Mormonism") because some few (very few, IMHO) violate its tenets and turn to destructive forms of extremism.

Again, I think the merits of a philosophical/believe system ought to be assessed by observing the results of adherents following its tenets, and not when some few adherents are disregarding those tenets.  You are doing the latter.  I think that is a flawed and unfair and unreasonable approach.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I noted that the church might want to be more forceful in denouncing and disciplining members the promote sich teachings and behavior.  You noted a few that they have so with. We can debate whether or not that is enough.

I find it a bit weird when people hostile to the Church get angry at the Church for not being sufficiently authoritarian in the lives of its members, while in other contexts complaining that the Church is too authoritarian.

The Church is not a secular government.  It has no law enforcement or investigative authority.  Its authority over the behavior of its members is substantially constrained, both by its own doctrines (see, e.g., D&C 134:10) and by the laws of the land.

You previously denigrated the Church's leaders as being "relatively silent about" extremism.  I responded by providing a litany of citations to General Authority comments which are anything but "silent" about it.  Here are some more:

Loving Others and Living with Differences (Elder Oaks, 2014) :

Quote

In public, what religious persons say and do involves other considerations. The free exercise of religion covers most public actions, but it is subject to qualifications necessary to accommodate the beliefs and practices of others. Laws can prohibit behavior that is generally recognized as wrong or unacceptable, like sexual exploitation, violence, or terrorist behavior, even when done by extremists in the name of religion. Less grievous behaviors, even though unacceptable to some believers, may simply need to be endured if legalized by what a Book of Mormon prophet called “the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29:26).

These comments by Elder Oaks are rather difficult to reconcile your characterization of the Church as an incubator for murderers.

Religious Freedom Essential for Free and Prosperous Society, Says Elder Oaks (2016) :

Quote

Elder Oaks then declared that the “religious teachings” and “religiously motivated actions of believers” are valuable to society. They deserve special legal protections.

“This point, of course, contradicts the advocacy of some secularists that religion is mostly a matter of history without significance in modern times, or, more ominously, that religion is irrational and discriminatory and therefore should be repressed in both public expression and influence,” he said. “Far from relics of the past, religious principles and religious believers are a vital present and future force everywhere.”

Much media attention focuses on atrocities of extremists purportedly “acting in the name of Islam.”

Elder Oaks said such perpetrators try to justify their actions on religious grounds. In fact, they are on the fringe of anything defined as “religion” and many Muslim leaders condemn their actions.

Elder Holland Addresses All-Party Parliamentary Group in UK House of Lords (2015) :

Quote

“A recent report published by the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., indicated that such conflicts and confrontations have reached all-time highs in all regions of the world except the Americas—and there has been difficulty enough even in those nations. Worldwide the last few years have seen the largest displacement of religious populations in memory. In almost every corner of the globe tens of millions from a wide-ranging variety of faiths have been forced from their homes due to one form of religious conflict or another. Indeed, religious extremism is now the driving force of terrorism worldwide.

The Church that sent out Elder Holland to make the above comments is the same one that, according to you, is incubating murderers.

Truth and Tolerance (Elder Oaks, 2011) :

Quote

While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their constitutional freedom to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior. Our duty to truth requires us to seek relief from some behavior that is wrong. This is easy to see when it involves extreme behaviors that most believers and nonbelievers recognize as wrong or unacceptable. For example, we must all deplore murder or other terrorist behavior, even when done by extremists in the name of religion. And we must all oppose violence and thievery.

Elder Oaks explicitly condemns "extreme behaviors" such as "murder or other terrorist behavior."

In contrast, you have, in this thread, accused the Church of "incubat{ing}" extremism, including "even murderous and very bad behavior."

As between you and Elder Oaks, which is providing a more reasonable and fair characterization of the position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Church Leader Shares Common Values in Saudi Arabia

Quote

Elder Perkins said the forum focused on the importance of religion and the good it can do in society.

“One of the key messages of the conference was that religion is a basic human right for billions of believers. Religious voices should not be removed from the public square by secular forces,” Elder Perkins said. “Each religion has a responsibility to promote common values shared by all religions, while respecting different beliefs. This helps reduce hate speech and extremist actions that can lead to oppression and violence.”

Elder Perkins is, on behalf of the Church, encouraging a reduction in "hate speech and extremist actions."

As between you and Elder Perkins, which is providing a more reasonable and fair characterization of the position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Self-Reliance Services (2017) :

Quote

On 28 January 2017 the Graduation Ceremony for the completion of the pilot course of the “Empowerment-Plus: Interfaith Social Cohesion & Enterprise Project” was held.

Professor Brian Grim of the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation and a practicing Catholic, has been working extensively with Church Headquarters and Self-Reliance Services to formulate an initiative to help those experiencing a wide range of socio-economic risks including displacement, unemployment, isolation, crime, addiction and radical extremist violence. Church Self-Reliance materials have been adapted into a multi-faith format.

Our Consuming Mission (Elder Holland, 1999) :

Quote

For the sake of the Church and your students and the gospel we love and teach, brethren and sisters, please work hard at staying balanced and steady, not given to extremism or rumors, sensationalism or fads of various kinds that often sweep through the land (and sometimes come among the members of the Church). In this regard you can be for us, and we hope with us, part of a solution, and never part of a problem.
...
I know the challenge of trying to hold a class’s attention. Every teacher wants to be a pied piper, in the very best sense, appealing to a student for the right reasons and mesmerizing them with our grasp of gospel truths. In this audience you and I know how demanding that is hour after hour, day after day, week after week. Teaching effectively, teaching powerfully, teaching with enthusiasm, solid preparation, and appealing supporting materials, that’s hard work—it’s among the hardest work I know and surely among the hardest work I have ever done. But please resist the temptation to push into the sensational or the extreme any doctrine you teach or any counsel you may give.

Elder Holland (to members of the Church) : "{P}lease work hard at staying balanced and steady, not given to extremism or rumors, sensationalism or fads of various kinds that often sweep through the land ... please resist the temptation to push into the sensational or the extreme any doctrine you teach or any counsel you may give."

You: "{The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints} incubate{s} {weirdos} ... the list of wack jobs {in the Church} doing harmful things is not short ... I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism ... numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on {have} their roots in Mormonism ... Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

As between you and Elder Holland, which is providing a more reasonable and fair characterization of the position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Looking beyond the Mark (Elder Cook, 2003) :

Quote

Today there is a tendency among some of us to “look beyond the mark” rather than to maintain a testimony of gospel basics. We do this when we substitute the philosophies of men for gospel truths, engage in gospel extremism, seek heroic gestures at the expense of daily consecration, or elevate rules over doctrine. Avoiding these behaviors will help us avoid the theological blindness and stumbling that Jacob described.  
...
Another sign of spiritual immaturity and sometimes apostasy is when one focuses on certain gospel principles or pursues “gospel hobbies” with excess zeal. Almost any virtue taken to excess can become a vice.

Certain members have wanted to add substantially to various doctrines. An example might be when one advocates additions to the Word of Wisdom that are not authorized by the Brethren and proselytes others to adopt these interpretations. If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark.

Elder Cook: "{Do not} substitute the philosophies of men for gospel truths, engage in gospel extremism, seek heroic gestures at the expense of daily consecration."

As between you and Elder Cook, which is providing a more reasonable and fair characterization of the position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Elder Bednar (2022) :

Quote

In the video, Elder Bednar repudiates disparaging remarks and generalized statements some Latter-day Saints have made about followers of Islam.

“We feel badly and misrepresented when a news report notes that someone who committed a grievous crime was a Latter-day Saint. Or when our Church is confused with offshoot groups whose conduct is contrary to ours,” Elder Bednar says. “In a similar way, to suggest that all Muslims are tied to grievous crimes here in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is just as inaccurate and offensive to Muslims. Muslims disavow any such actions, just as Latter-day Saints do. Every major religion has extremists who misinterpret the teachings of their own religion or who seek to do wrong in the name of religion.”

Elder Bednar: "{T}o suggest that all Muslims are tied to grievous crimes here in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is just as inaccurate and offensive to Muslims. Muslims disavow any such actions, just as Latter-day Saints do. Every major religion has extremists who misinterpret the teachings of their own religion or who seek to do wrong in the name of religion."

You: "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."

Elder Bednar Makes Historic First Visit to Sudan, Meets with Religious and Government leaders (2022) :

Quote

Elder David A. Bednar became the first member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to visit the Republic of Sudan during a four-day trip to the African nation in early February.
...

During his visit, Elder Bednar met with the Deputy Chairperson of the Sovereignty Council, which serves as the interim head of state for Sudan following the revolution. Both leaders expressed a common hope for the bright future of the Sudanese people and their country.

Additionally, Elder Bednar met with the Sufi Religious Council, and according to the Newsroom report, their meetings led to “expressions of support for all people and a general denouncing of religious extremism.”

Pursuing Religious Liberty Worldwide (Pres. Oaks, 2022) :

Quote

When citizens learn to live together with respect—despite important religious differences—they are also more likely to live peacefully with others with whom they have important secular differences. Critics who condemn religion as the source of great atrocities in the past should remember that the mass killings of the last century were not done in the name of religion. The unspeakable crimes of the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, and the ethnic cleansings in Central Africa were primarily motivated by ethnic, political, or tribal differences, not by religious rivalries.[26] Indeed, those regimes were overtly hostile to religion. Similarly, while public attention focuses on religious extremists’ current atrocities in a few parts of the world, leaders of the very faiths they invoke have forcefully condemned their violent acts.[27] Violent extremism is no part of the religious freedom we advocate.

Pres. Oaks: "Violent extremism is no part of the religious freedom we advocate."

You: "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."

Which of these is a more fair and reasonable characterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Church Response to Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven (2003) :

Quote

This book is not history, and Krakauer is no historian. He is a storyteller who cuts corners to make the story sound good. His basic thesis appears to be that people who are religious are irrational, and that irrational people do strange things. He does a huge disservice to his readers by promulgating old stereotypes. He finds sufficient zealots and extremists in the past 150 years to help him tell his story, and by extrapolation tars every Mormon with the same brush. The exceptions are the rule by his standards. One could be forgiven for concluding that every Latter-day Saint, including your friendly Mormon neighbor, has a tendency to violence. And so Krakauer unwittingly puts himself in the same camp as those who believe every German is a Nazi, every Japanese a fanatic, and every Arab a terrorist.
...

Under the Banner of Heaven suffers from an extremely unhealthy and unworkable overgeneralization. Notice the following statement early in the book: “To comprehend Brian David Mitchell [the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart] — or to comprehend Dan Lafferty, or Tom Green, or the polygamous inhabitants of Bountiful and Colorado City — one must first understand the faith these people have in common, a faith that gives shape and purpose to every facet of their lives. And any such understanding must begin with the aforementioned Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (53, emphasis added).

This is like asking someone: “Would you like to understand Catholicism today? Then study carefully the atrocities of the Crusades and the horrors of the Inquisition.” Or: “Would you like to gain a better insight into the minds and feelings of German people today? Then read Mein Kampf and become a serious student of Adolph Hitler.” Or: “Would you like a deeper glimpse into the hearts of Lutherans today? Then be certain to study the anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther.” Or: “Would you care to better understand where Southern Baptists are coming from? Then simply read the many sermons of Baptist preachers in the Civil War who utilized biblical passages to justify the practice of slavery.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Lee Benson of Salt Lake City’s Deseret News: “Throughout history,” he wrote, “perfectly respectable religions have been used as the jumping-off spot for hundreds and thousands of people aiming for an orbit outside of what’s right. From Henry VIII when he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn to Osama bin Laden when he wanted to topple the Twin Towers to Cain killing Abel, it is a practice as old as mankind itself. Blaming religions for these unauthorized, self-serving spinoffs is like blaming Philo Farnsworth for MTV” (Deseret News, 21 July, 2003).

Regarding Krakauer: "Throughout history, perfectly respectable religions have been used as the jumping-off spot for hundreds and thousands of people aiming for an orbit outside of what’s right. From Henry VIII when he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn to Osama bin Laden when he wanted to topple the Twin Towers to Cain killing Abel, it is a practice as old as mankind itself. Blaming religions for these unauthorized, self-serving spinoffs is like blaming Philo Farnsworth for MTV."

You: "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."

Are you closer to the Brethren, or to Krakauer, in your characterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The Latter-day Saint Ethic of Civility (2009) :

Quote

The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism. Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological spectrum. Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.

Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible. As the Church begins to rise in prominence and its members achieve a higher public profile, a diversity of voices and opinions naturally follows. Some may even mistake these voices as being authoritative or representative of the Church. However, individual members think and speak for themselves. Only the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles speak for the whole Church.

Elders Bednar and Gong Discuss How to Better Understand Muslims (2021) :

Quote

Elder Gong said Latter-day Saints should learn more about their Muslim neighbors because such knowledge “will help us be more kind and more accurate in what we say and feel about each other.”

Elder Bednar repudiated any disparaging remarks and generalized statements Latter-day Saints have made about followers of Islam. Such comments, he said, are wrong and offensive.

“Such biases cause those who feel that way to overlook the kindness and goodness of the overwhelming majority of all Muslims,” Elder Bednar said. “To suggest that all Muslims are tied to grievous crimes here in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is … inaccurate and offensive to Muslims. Muslims disavow any such actions, just as Latter-day Saints do. Every major religion has extremists who misinterpret the teachings of their own religion or who seek to do wrong in the name of religion.”

Elder Bednar: "Every major religion has extremists who misinterpret the teachings of their own religion or who seek to do wrong in the name of religion."

You: "{D}o you see as many wack job stories of extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior from mainline religious adherents like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on?"

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Again my observations are not an indictment of the entire church. 

Again:

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions {such as Mormonism} tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."
• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."
• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

So "Mormonism" is not "the entire church?"  Okay.  So what is it?  What are the parameters of "Mormonism" that you have in mind?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But it may be an indictment of some of its doctrine and statements in scripture and by prior leaders. 

So when you say 

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions {such as Mormonism} tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."

We are supposed to interpret this as a reference to "doctrine and statements in scripture and by prior leaders," but not to the Church itself?  How does that work?

When you say

• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."

We are supposed to interpret "Mormonism" as referring not to the Church, but to "some of its doctrine and statements in scripture and by prior leaders"?

If so, why not just say that?

And isn't than pretty much in alignment with what I have said any number of times?  That is, that "most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse"?

When you say

• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

We are supposed to interpret this as "{Some of the Church's doctrine and statements in scripture and by prior leaders} provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."?

But then that wouldn't account for those "doctrine and statements" as they are put into practice by the most observant Latter-day Saints, whereby they lead normal and healthy and productive lives.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And it certainly is an indictment of members who latch on to such tings, attend conferences that promote such things, post on message boards that are about such things, and so on.  I think such activities are dangerous and lead to more dangerous behavior.

So do I.  But we materially differ in allocating responsibility for these extremist behaviors. 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."
• "{T}he list of wack jobs using LDS doctrine to create delusions of grandeur and and up doing harmful things is not short."
• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."
• "{D}o you see as many wack job stories of extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior from mainline religious adherents like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on?  I don't but if could be I am just not paying attention."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Happens a lot in Mormonism.  Not so much in mainline religions."
• "Mormonism is an end times religion."
• "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."
• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

Again, I am not using this thread to disparage or indict "Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on" based on them having adherents who go out and do crazy things.  That's your bag.  

Yes I said all that.  What is your point?

See above.  You sure seem intent on allocating fault on the Church, disparaging it for these behaviors, accusing it of "incubat{ing}" these extremists and their "murderous and very bad behavior{s}."  I am disputing this allocation of fault.  That is my point.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I did not say anything about you "disparaging" other faiths so that seems a bit of a straw man.  In your comments you also complain that I only am bringing up Mormonism.  Well yes.  That is because 1:  I am still a Latter-day Saint.  And 2:  I have an interest in things  LDS.  So my focus is not nor will it be on other religions and ideologies.  Nor does it have to be notwithstanding your insistence.

You are disparaging the Church by contrasting it with other religious groups which, in your view, do not suffer from the same horrific defects you ascribe to the Church (incubating murderers and other forms of extremism).  You brought these other religious groups into the discussion.  Not I.

And again, I find it unfortunate that familiarity breeds contempt.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

But do you see as many wack job stories of extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior from mainline religious adherents like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on?  I don't but if could be I am just not paying attention. 

I assume you are familiar with, or at least have heard of, the Magdarame in in the Philippines, and their regular (as in every year) practices involving crucifixion, self-flagellation, etc.?

 

A different issue, but yes I have heard of that.

 

And yet you aren't indicting the Catholic Church for it.  Why is that?

Because my interest is in how Mormonism influences such things we are discussing.  Not Catholicism.

And yet you injected Catholicism into this discussion.  As an exemplar, a counterpoint, to the defects you find in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (re: "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior").  

I then brought up instances of "extremism" by Catholics and you shrug it off.

It's your counterpoint, T.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You brought up sexual abuse not me.

So your comment about "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior" by Latter-day Saints was not intended to include "very bad behavior" in the form of sexual abuse?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I am curious as to your thoughts about the allegations of sexual misconduct against atheists like Lawrence Krauss (tenured professor at Arizona State), David Silverman (former president of American Atheists), David Thorstad (founding member of NAMBLA), John Maynard Keynes, Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine), and so on?  Are we free to attribute their misconduct to their ideology?

Straw man.  I have not been discussing sexual abuse by members of the Church so I see no need to pursue it. 

Not really.  You brought up "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior."  Does sexual misconduct not fit within these parameters?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

As for the persons above, if it can be shown that their sexual misconduct is tied to their ideology then sure. That should be explored. My guess is in cannot be.  

Would that you could extend this "guess" to your fellow Latter-day Saints.  A slight hesitation before attributing to them and their faith horrible things like "incubat{ing}" weirdos, having "disproportionate" levels of "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior" amongst them, and so on.

Familiarity, it seems, has bred a lot of contempt.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Me: "I think most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse."

Ok.  All are to some extent.  The extent is what we are talking about.

Yes.  Using terrible, but conveniently vague and unquantifiable, terms like "disproportionate" and "rampant" and "incubate" and "aberrations of extremism."

All based on anecdotal - and oftensensationalized - popular media coverage.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think the merits of a philosophical/believe system ought to be assessed by observing the results of adherents following its tenets, and not when some few adherents are disregarding those tenets.

Good for you.

Man, that's pretty cynical.  And unfair.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think when a religions, any religion, has adherents that go off the deep end, and not infrequently, it needs to address such things and do everything they can to prevent it. Even if it means repudiating books, people, prior teachings by its leaders and so on.

Most religious groups don't really have a centralized hierarchy that can do the things you are suggesting here.

The Church doesn't really have a systematized imprimatur or nihil obstat or Index Librorum Prohibitorum process.  That said, the Church has repudiated some things.  Julie Rowe's book, for example, is apparently on a list of "spurious materials" maintained by CES.  Denver Snuffer's books were removed from Deseret Book, as were Tim Ballard's.  Rowe, Snuffer and Ballard have all been excommunicated.  The Church "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."  The Church repudiated "blood atonement" in 1889 and after.  "Adam-God" was repudiated in 1976.

One of the values of having living prophets and apostles is receiving realtime counsel from them.  Extremists are, by their chosen course of conduct, pretty much always disregarding contemporary prophetic counsel in favor of their interpretation of yesteryear's.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I will try to address the rest below later.  But this is becoming tedious. And really all we have from you below is more of the above.  

Okay.

I find it unfortunate that so many of our interactions end up acrimonious.  But as long as there are folks like you publicly and unfairly disparaging and denigrating my faith, I will stand and defend it.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not perfect, but it is overwhelmingly good and decent.  It deserves better, in terms of benefit of the doubt, fair characterizations and generalizations, credit where due, and so on.  Yes, it is open to reasonable criticism, but your disparagements here are not, in my view, reasonable.  

• As Elder Bednar put it: “To suggest that all Muslims are tied to grievous crimes here in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is … inaccurate and offensive to Muslims. Muslims disavow any such actions, just as Latter-day Saints do. Every major religion has extremists who misinterpret the teachings of their own religion or who seek to do wrong in the name of religion.”
• And here: "We feel badly and misrepresented when a news report notes that someone who committed a grievous crime was a Latter-day Saint. Or when our Church is confused with offshoot groups whose conduct is contrary to ours.  In a similar way, to suggest that all Muslims are tied to grievous crimes here in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is just as inaccurate and offensive to Muslims."
• As Lee Benson put it: "Throughout history, perfectly respectable religions have been used as the jumping-off spot for hundreds and thousands of people aiming for an orbit outside of what’s right. From Henry VIII when he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn to Osama bin Laden when he wanted to topple the Twin Towers to Cain killing Abel, it is a practice as old as mankind itself. Blaming religions for these unauthorized, self-serving spinoffs is like blaming Philo Farnsworth for MTV."
• As Elder oaks put it: "Violent extremism is no part of the religious freedom we advocate."

The Church has been quite clear in providing counsel regarding the types of extremism we both deplore.  We differ only in that you proceed to blame the Church, despite its efforts, for the extremist behaviors of its errant members.  I do not.  A doctor who offers sound medical advice to a patient is not culpable when that patient ignores or materially distorts or acts in violation of that advice.  An attorney who offers sound legal counsel to a client is not culpable if the client disregards or acts in contravention of that counsel.  Similarly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not culpable for the conduct of Chad Daybell, Tim Ballard, Paul Adams, and other Latter-day Saints who ignore or directly violate counsel given by the Church.

You accuse "Mormonism" (which I have construed as including the visible entity headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah and known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) of "incubat{ing}" these terrible things, of fostering "murderous and very bad behavior" in its members, of creating a "pathway" for a "disproportionate number of" its members to do these terrible things, and so on.  I find these characterizations manifestly inaccurate, unfair, unreasonable, and mean.

The Church deserves better than this, even from people who dislike it.  As it is, though, it needs defenders.  So in a small and insignificant way, I try to do that.  Daniel C. Peterson put it this way:

Quote

Sometimes, failure to respond to a criticism, claim or attack lends it unearned credibility even when it’s completely without any merit, and allows it to spread widely and to take firm root as if it were true. That is why the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, advised Latter-day Saints to allow no more “uncontested slam dunks” from critics. Falsehoods should not go uncontradicted into the public record.

“Be ready always,” says the King James translation of 1 Peter 3:15, “to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”
...
Elder Maxwell was fond of Austin Farrer’s praise of the great Christian writer and apologist C.S. Lewis: “Though argument does not create conviction,” Farrer wrote in 1965, “lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”

Not long after the beginning of the World War II, Lewis himself delivered a famous address titled “Learning in War-Time,” in which, among other things, he observed that “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” We might broaden his point while still being faithful to his intent if we were to rephrase it as follows: “Good arguments must exist, if for no other reason, because bad arguments need to be answered.”

"'What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.'"

"'{B}ad arguments need to be answered."

"{N}o more 'uncontested slam dunks' from critics."

Just so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

h boy here we go again. Persecution complex, over the top hyperbole and thin skin warning to all readers.

I gave a couple of responses to your comments that you chose not to respond to.  I don’t mind that you made that choice, just saying you made the choice to respond as you did to Smac when you don’t seem to feel obligated to respond to everyone who responds to you, so your complaint about his predictable response when you chose to engage him seems also predictable.

You two have this dance going, which makes it appear that if he has a persecution complex going, you have one as well…or at least this engagement is something you two want to happen. I don’t think either of you has a persecution complex, you two just are in a rut from my point of view and enjoy in some way this type of conversation.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I gave a couple of responses to your comments that you chose not to respond to.  I don’t mind that you made that choice, just saying you made the choice to respond as you did to Smac when you don’t seem to feel obligated to respond to everyone who responds to you, so your complaint about his predictable response when you chose to engage him seems also predictable.

You two have this dance going, which makes it appear that if he has a persecution complex going, you have one as well…or at least this engagement is something you two want to happen. I don’t think either of you has a persecution complex, you two just are in a rut from my point of view and enjoy in some way this type of conversation.

And all the quotes, geez!

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And all the quotes, geez!

Yeah, this is my usual response:

 

[CA Steve]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I gave a couple of responses to your comments that you chose not to respond to.  I don’t mind that you made that choice, just saying you made the choice to respond as you did to Smac when you don’t seem to feel obligated to respond to everyone who responds to you, so your complaint about his predictable response when you chose to engage him seems also predictable.

You two have this dance going, which makes it appear that if he has a persecution complex going, you have one as well…or at least this engagement is something you two want to happen. I don’t think either of you has a persecution complex, you two just are in a rut from my point of view and enjoy in some way this type of conversation.

The big difference being that SMAC treats anyone who disagrees with him that way while Teancum only responds that way to SMAC.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

The big difference being that SMAC treats anyone who disagrees with him that way while Teancum only responds that way to SMAC.

Yep.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

The big difference being that SMAC treats anyone who disagrees with him that way while Teancum only responds that way to SMAC.

That is my point.  If Teancum is tired of the predictable responses from Smac as he appears to be in his above posts, then by him not responding to Smac, there will be fewer of such.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is my point.  If Teancum is tired of the predictable responses from Smac as he appears to be in his above posts, then by him not responding to Smac, there will be fewer of such.

But then how will Smac know he is wrong?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But then how will Smac know he is wrong?

One response pointing out alleged errors seems sufficient to me.  If repetition is tedious to Teancum, why intentionally provide Smac with a reason to respond?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But then how will Smac know he is wrong?

It's one of those "danged if you do and danged if you don't" scenarios. Teancum will have to decide which is more important to him.  Proving Smac wrong or not being annoyed by smac's long posts.   

[Nofear]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's one of those "danged if you do and danged if you don't" scenarios. Teancum will have to decide which is more important to him.  Proving Smac wrong or not being annoyed by smac's long posts.   

Well, there is also the option that Teancum is one who is wrong and he could finally admit to being so. That is a conclusion that I very rarely see on discussion boards though.

 

PS: For my part, I actually appreciate smac97's thoroughness (and he is a lawyer, so not suprising). Not that always read them or always agree, but I appreciate it. And he rarely engages me (or vice versa) as the topics that we are wont to respond to are rather divergent.

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's one of those "danged if you do and danged if you don't" scenarios. Teancum will have to decide which is more important to him.  Proving Smac wrong or not being annoyed by smac's long posts.   

Truly a modern Gordian Knot.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quit railing against the Church and its members and then taunting those of us who rebut your calumnies.

If the shoe fits...

You are doing nothing but attempting to do this.  That you are not doing it well is another story.

"indict" = "to charge with an offense or crime; accuse of wrongdoing; incriminate; condemn."

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."
• "{T}he list of wack jobs using LDS doctrine to create delusions of grandeur and and up doing harmful things is not short."
• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."
• "{D}o you see as many wack job stories of extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior from mainline religious adherents like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on?  I don't but if could be I am just not paying attention."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Seems very rampant in Mormonism."
• "Happens a lot in Mormonism.  Not so much in mainline religions."
• "Mormonism is an end times religion."
• "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."
• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

You are criticizing the Church.  You are certainly not complimenting it.  You are not clinically describing it.  You are finding fault with it. You are accusing it of wrongdoing.  You are condemning it.

You are characterizing it as "incubating" extremism "and even murderous and very bad behavior," of having "a disproportionate number" of its members engaging in such "extremes."

So spare us the pearl-clutching routine.  It's not even that big a deal.  You've said nasty and offensive these about us and to us for years now.  This thread is not particularly unique in that regard.  But yeah, you are trying to cast blame on, to "indict," the Church because some few of its adherents disregard and even directly contravene its central tenets by engaging in extremism.  

Your various and repeated references to "Mormonism" are not a reference to "the entire church?"  Huh.  They sure come across that way.

"I think the more conservative and literal religions {such as Mormonism} tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."

"I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."

"Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

Observant Latter-day Saints are, even by your own measure, functioning and healthy members of society.  I'm glad we can agree on that.  But you nevertheless are indicting the Church in its entirety ("Mormonism") because some few (very few, IMHO) violate its tenets and turn to destructive forms of extremism.

Again, I think the merits of a philosophical/believe system ought to be assessed by observing the results of adherents following its tenets, and not when some few adherents are disregarding those tenets.  You are doing the latter.  I think that is a flawed and unfair and unreasonable approach.

I find it a bit weird when people hostile to the Church get angry at the Church for not being sufficiently authoritarian in the lives of its members, while in other contexts complaining that the Church is too authoritarian.

The Church is not a secular government.  It has no law enforcement or investigative authority.  Its authority over the behavior of its members is substantially constrained, both by its own doctrines (see, e.g., D&C 134:10) and by the laws of the land.

You previously denigrated the Church's leaders as being "relatively silent about" extremism.  I responded by providing a litany of citations to General Authority comments which are anything but "silent" about it.  Here are some more:

Loving Others and Living with Differences (Elder Oaks, 2014) :

These comments by Elder Oaks are rather difficult to reconcile your characterization of the Church as an incubator for murderers.

Religious Freedom Essential for Free and Prosperous Society, Says Elder Oaks (2016) :

Elder Holland Addresses All-Party Parliamentary Group in UK House of Lords (2015) :

The Church that sent out Elder Holland to make the above comments is the same one that, according to you, is incubating murderers.

Truth and Tolerance (Elder Oaks, 2011) :

Elder Oaks explicitly condemns "extreme behaviors" such as "murder or other terrorist behavior."

In contrast, you have, in this thread, accused the Church of "incubat{ing}" extremism, including "even murderous and very bad behavior."

As between you and Elder Oaks, which is providing a more reasonable and fair characterization of the position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Church Leader Shares Common Values in Saudi Arabia

Elder Perkins is, on behalf of the Church, encouraging a reduction in "hate speech and extremist actions."

As between you and Elder Perkins, which is providing a more reasonable and fair characterization of the position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Self-Reliance Services (2017) :

Our Consuming Mission (Elder Holland, 1999) :

Elder Holland (to members of the Church) : "{P}lease work hard at staying balanced and steady, not given to extremism or rumors, sensationalism or fads of various kinds that often sweep through the land ... please resist the temptation to push into the sensational or the extreme any doctrine you teach or any counsel you may give."

You: "{The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints} incubate{s} {weirdos} ... the list of wack jobs {in the Church} doing harmful things is not short ... I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism ... numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on {have} their roots in Mormonism ... Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

As between you and Elder Holland, which is providing a more reasonable and fair characterization of the position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Looking beyond the Mark (Elder Cook, 2003) :

Elder Cook: "{Do not} substitute the philosophies of men for gospel truths, engage in gospel extremism, seek heroic gestures at the expense of daily consecration."

As between you and Elder Cook, which is providing a more reasonable and fair characterization of the position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Elder Bednar (2022) :

Elder Bednar: "{T}o suggest that all Muslims are tied to grievous crimes here in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is just as inaccurate and offensive to Muslims. Muslims disavow any such actions, just as Latter-day Saints do. Every major religion has extremists who misinterpret the teachings of their own religion or who seek to do wrong in the name of religion."

You: "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."

Elder Bednar Makes Historic First Visit to Sudan, Meets with Religious and Government leaders (2022) :

Pursuing Religious Liberty Worldwide (Pres. Oaks, 2022) :

Pres. Oaks: "Violent extremism is no part of the religious freedom we advocate."

You: "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."

Which of these is a more fair and reasonable characterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Church Response to Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven (2003) :

Regarding Krakauer: "Throughout history, perfectly respectable religions have been used as the jumping-off spot for hundreds and thousands of people aiming for an orbit outside of what’s right. From Henry VIII when he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn to Osama bin Laden when he wanted to topple the Twin Towers to Cain killing Abel, it is a practice as old as mankind itself. Blaming religions for these unauthorized, self-serving spinoffs is like blaming Philo Farnsworth for MTV."

You: "And over the past for years there are numerous incidents of preppers, violence based on a belief of special revelation, knowledge, visions and so on.  All with their roots in Mormonism."

Are you closer to the Brethren, or to Krakauer, in your characterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The Latter-day Saint Ethic of Civility (2009) :

Elders Bednar and Gong Discuss How to Better Understand Muslims (2021) :

Elder Bednar: "Every major religion has extremists who misinterpret the teachings of their own religion or who seek to do wrong in the name of religion."

You: "{D}o you see as many wack job stories of extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior from mainline religious adherents like Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on?"

Again:

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions {such as Mormonism} tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."
• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."
• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

So "Mormonism" is not "the entire church?"  Okay.  So what is it?  What are the parameters of "Mormonism" that you have in mind?

So when you say 

• "I think the more conservative and literal religions {such as Mormonism} tend to maybe not attract more weirdos but incubate them."

We are supposed to interpret this as a reference to "doctrine and statements in scripture and by prior leaders," but not to the Church itself?  How does that work?

When you say

• "I do not see similar aberrations of extremism in more mainline religious practices as I do in Mormonism."

We are supposed to interpret "Mormonism" as referring not to the Church, but to "some of its doctrine and statements in scripture and by prior leaders"?

If so, why not just say that?

And isn't than pretty much in alignment with what I have said any number of times?  That is, that "most philosophical and belief systems are susceptible to substantial distortion and misuse"?

When you say

• "Mormonism provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."

We are supposed to interpret this as "{Some of the Church's doctrine and statements in scripture and by prior leaders} provides a pathway for a disproportionate number of individuals taken it to extremes."?

But then that wouldn't account for those "doctrine and statements" as they are put into practice by the most observant Latter-day Saints, whereby they lead normal and healthy and productive lives.

So do I.  But we materially differ in allocating responsibility for these extremist behaviors. 

See above.  You sure seem intent on allocating fault on the Church, disparaging it for these behaviors, accusing it of "incubat{ing}" these extremists and their "murderous and very bad behavior{s}."  I am disputing this allocation of fault.  That is my point.

You are disparaging the Church by contrasting it with other religious groups which, in your view, do not suffer from the same horrific defects you ascribe to the Church (incubating murderers and other forms of extremism).  You brought these other religious groups into the discussion.  Not I.

And again, I find it unfortunate that familiarity breeds contempt.  

And yet you injected Catholicism into this discussion.  As an exemplar, a counterpoint, to the defects you find in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (re: "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior").  

I then brought up instances of "extremism" by Catholics and you shrug it off.

It's your counterpoint, T.  

So your comment about "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior" by Latter-day Saints was not intended to include "very bad behavior" in the form of sexual abuse?

Not really.  You brought up "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior."  Does sexual misconduct not fit within these parameters?

Would that you could extend this "guess" to your fellow Latter-day Saints.  A slight hesitation before attributing to them and their faith horrible things like "incubat{ing}" weirdos, having "disproportionate" levels of "extremism and even murderous and very bad behavior" amongst them, and so on.

Familiarity, it seems, has bred a lot of contempt.

Yes.  Using terrible, but conveniently vague and unquantifiable, terms like "disproportionate" and "rampant" and "incubate" and "aberrations of extremism."

All based on anecdotal - and oftensensationalized - popular media coverage.

Man, that's pretty cynical.  And unfair.  

Most religious groups don't really have a centralized hierarchy that can do the things you are suggesting here.

The Church doesn't really have a systematized imprimatur or nihil obstat or Index Librorum Prohibitorum process.  That said, the Church has repudiated some things.  Julie Rowe's book, for example, is apparently on a list of "spurious materials" maintained by CES.  Denver Snuffer's books were removed from Deseret Book, as were Tim Ballard's.  Rowe, Snuffer and Ballard have all been excommunicated.  The Church "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."  The Church repudiated "blood atonement" in 1889 and after.  "Adam-God" was repudiated in 1976.

One of the values of having living prophets and apostles is receiving realtime counsel from them.  Extremists are, by their chosen course of conduct, pretty much always disregarding contemporary prophetic counsel in favor of their interpretation of yesteryear's.

Okay.

I find it unfortunate that so many of our interactions end up acrimonious.  But as long as there are folks like you publicly and unfairly disparaging and denigrating my faith, I will stand and defend it.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not perfect, but it is overwhelmingly good and decent.  It deserves better, in terms of benefit of the doubt, fair characterizations and generalizations, credit where due, and so on.  Yes, it is open to reasonable criticism, but your disparagements here are not, in my view, reasonable.  

• As Elder Bednar put it: “To suggest that all Muslims are tied to grievous crimes here in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is … inaccurate and offensive to Muslims. Muslims disavow any such actions, just as Latter-day Saints do. Every major religion has extremists who misinterpret the teachings of their own religion or who seek to do wrong in the name of religion.”
• And here: "We feel badly and misrepresented when a news report notes that someone who committed a grievous crime was a Latter-day Saint. Or when our Church is confused with offshoot groups whose conduct is contrary to ours.  In a similar way, to suggest that all Muslims are tied to grievous crimes here in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world is just as inaccurate and offensive to Muslims."
• As Lee Benson put it: "Throughout history, perfectly respectable religions have been used as the jumping-off spot for hundreds and thousands of people aiming for an orbit outside of what’s right. From Henry VIII when he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn to Osama bin Laden when he wanted to topple the Twin Towers to Cain killing Abel, it is a practice as old as mankind itself. Blaming religions for these unauthorized, self-serving spinoffs is like blaming Philo Farnsworth for MTV."
• As Elder oaks put it: "Violent extremism is no part of the religious freedom we advocate."

The Church has been quite clear in providing counsel regarding the types of extremism we both deplore.  We differ only in that you proceed to blame the Church, despite its efforts, for the extremist behaviors of its errant members.  I do not.  A doctor who offers sound medical advice to a patient is not culpable when that patient ignores or materially distorts or acts in violation of that advice.  An attorney who offers sound legal counsel to a client is not culpable if the client disregards or acts in contravention of that counsel.  Similarly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not culpable for the conduct of Chad Daybell, Tim Ballard, Paul Adams, and other Latter-day Saints who ignore or directly violate counsel given by the Church.

You accuse "Mormonism" (which I have construed as including the visible entity headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah and known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) of "incubat{ing}" these terrible things, of fostering "murderous and very bad behavior" in its members, of creating a "pathway" for a "disproportionate number of" its members to do these terrible things, and so on.  I find these characterizations manifestly inaccurate, unfair, unreasonable, and mean.

The Church deserves better than this, even from people who dislike it.  As it is, though, it needs defenders.  So in a small and insignificant way, I try to do that.  Daniel C. Peterson put it this way:

"'What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.'"

"'{B}ad arguments need to be answered."

"{N}o more 'uncontested slam dunks' from critics."

Just so.

Thanks,

-Smac

At this point I have no desire to do a point by point response.  Your posting style is exhausting. And your hyperbole, persecution complex, overt defensiveness, repetition of the same thing over and over and over and over again is just tiresome.  And it seems to me that when it comes to Mormonism, you have a pretty thin skin.

That said there are  a few point I do want to make.

 Fine. I concede I am disparaging and indicting Mormonism.  And it deserves it  And guess what?  I think other religions may be deserving as well.  Islam deserves it even more so. Death and killing is codified in their canon. Even if only 1% of Muslims become extremists and Islamic terrorists it is a hell of a lot of people.  Same for Mormonism. 1% is 170,000. Like it or not there is a lot of abhorrent doctrine in Mormonism.  You point out a few of the more awful and odd ones that have been repudiated. Well wonderful  Yet they were taught by so called prophets, seers and revelators. So either they were really from God and the current leaders are wrong or they were not from God and prior leaders as well as current leaders were and are not prophets, seers and revelators.  

So yes I am criticizing Mormonism.  And I am happy to criticize many or most others as well.  Call me a pearl clutcher and feel free to cry me a river about my years of criticism, my nastiness and offensiveness if you wish.  I think it is well deserved.  I am reaching a point where I agree with Christopher Hitchens on the deleterious impacts of religion in general.  

 

I do commend the current LDS leader for attempting to combat extremism in their ranks.  You have proved my wrong there.  But it does not seem effective. And that is because the weirdness that some cary Mormonism to is built into the doctrine.  I imagine most the  extremist think the current  crop of top leadership are false prophets and are leading the church astray.  Heck, someone posted here a video of a mother and daughter defending Tim Ballard and condemning the top leaders of the church.  But I predict you will only see more extremists that base their claims in Mormon doctrine in the coming years. And many will wed their religious extremism with their religious extremism.  And yes we see this and will see more of this from other faiths especially the radical right evangelical Christian Nationalist types. I equally disparage and indict them as well as their Bible literalism found in their faith system.

 

No once again this is not a to disparage the majority of the members of the church who are good and decent people. The question then becomes is their religion needed to be  good and decent people?  Who knows.  But the  doctrine of mormonism is chock full of weirdness that can be taken to extremes. That is what I condemn.  Such things in other religions should be equally condemned. Same for any harmful ideology. Hopefully that clarifies one question you ask many times above regarding the Latter-day Saint People vs the doctrine of Mormonism.  And it does not mean ALL the doctrine of Mormonism.

Does familiarity breed contempt? Maybe? I am most familiar with Mormonism and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the LDS canon, history and doctrine from inception to today. Likely better than most of the member sitting in the pews on Sunday. Not as much as some. Maybe not as much as you.  But it is what I know and lived most of my life. It is the religion that has had the largest impact on me for both good and ill.  It is still the religion I have the most interest in. So sure. It makes sense I am more familiar, and in your words, hold more contempt towards some of it than I do any other.  That should not be surprising. Same for you really. Do you spend time on Catholic, Islamic or Protestant message boards defending those ffaiths?  I think not.

Regarding sexual abuse no that was not the point of my posts.  Sexual abuse is certainly an abusive thing.  But I don't find those in our faith tradition, or any other, justifying abuse based on doctrine (other than perhaps some using plural marriage as an excuse the perpetrate sexual abuse.  The secular persons you brought up in relation to sexual abuse, I don't think there abuse is rooted in their ideology. I think they are simply acting evilly and badly.

 

Are our exchange acrimonious?  Perhaps to some extent. It is the nature of such things. I expect you will continue to defend and be offended by pretty much anything negative that is said about the Church.  I expect I will continue to find things to criticize.  And so it is.  I would still hope though that we could have a sandwich and a diet coke together someday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

I gave a couple of responses to your comments that you chose not to respond to.

Actually I have been busy and have not had time to respond. I think I did see one where I gave you a thumbs up.

17 hours ago, Calm said:

 

 I don’t mind that you made that choice, just saying you made the choice to respond as you did to Smac when you don’t seem to feel obligated to respond to everyone who responds to you, so your complaint about his predictable response when you chose to engage him seems also predictable.

Fair enough.

 

17 hours ago, Calm said:

You two have this dance going, which makes it appear that if he has a persecution complex going

Smac's posting style and his persecution complex is not just in regards to his interactions with me.  It is his style, his hallmark, his approach to almost any poster who posts criticism of the church and does not back down.

 

17 hours ago, Calm said:

 

, you have one as well…

I have a persecution complex?  Maybe. Can you elaborate?

17 hours ago, Calm said:

 

or at least this engagement is something you two want to happen. I don’t think either of you has a persecution complex, you two just are in a rut from my point of view and enjoy in some way this type of conversation.

Ha!  Maybe.  Gluttons for punishment perhaps?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Maybe.  Gluttons for punishment perhaps?

Could be.   

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

At this point I have no desire to do a point by point response.  Your posting style is exhausting. And your hyperbole, persecution complex, overt defensiveness, repetition of the same thing over and over and over and over again is just tiresome.  And it seems to me that when it comes to Mormonism, you have a pretty thin skin.

That said there are  a few point I do want to make.

 Fine. I concede I am disparaging and indicting Mormonism.  And it deserves it  And guess what?  I think other religions may be deserving as well.  Islam deserves it even more so. Death and killing is codified in their canon. Even if only 1% of Muslims become extremists and Islamic terrorists it is a hell of a lot of people.  Same for Mormonism. 1% is 170,000. Like it or not there is a lot of abhorrent doctrine in Mormonism.  You point out a few of the more awful and odd ones that have been repudiated. Well wonderful  Yet they were taught by so called prophets, seers and revelators. So either they were really from God and the current leaders are wrong or they were not from God and prior leaders as well as current leaders were and are not prophets, seers and revelators.  

So yes I am criticizing Mormonism.  And I am happy to criticize many or most others as well.  Call me a pearl clutcher and feel free to cry me a river about my years of criticism, my nastiness and offensiveness if you wish.  I think it is well deserved.  I am reaching a point where I agree with Christopher Hitchens on the deleterious impacts of religion in general.  

 

I do commend the current LDS leader for attempting to combat extremism in their ranks.  You have proved my wrong there.  But it does not seem effective. And that is because the weirdness that some cary Mormonism to is built into the doctrine.  I imagine most the  extremist think the current  crop of top leadership are false prophets and are leading the church astray.  Heck, someone posted here a video of a mother and daughter defending Tim Ballard and condemning the top leaders of the church.  But I predict you will only see more extremists that base their claims in Mormon doctrine in the coming years. And many will wed their religious extremism with their religious extremism.  And yes we see this and will see more of this from other faiths especially the radical right evangelical Christian Nationalist types. I equally disparage and indict them as well as their Bible literalism found in their faith system.

 

No once again this is not a to disparage the majority of the members of the church who are good and decent people. The question then becomes is their religion needed to be  good and decent people?  Who knows.  But the  doctrine of mormonism is chock full of weirdness that can be taken to extremes. That is what I condemn.  Such things in other religions should be equally condemned. Same for any harmful ideology. Hopefully that clarifies one question you ask many times above regarding the Latter-day Saint People vs the doctrine of Mormonism.  And it does not mean ALL the doctrine of Mormonism.

Does familiarity breed contempt? Maybe? I am most familiar with Mormonism and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the LDS canon, history and doctrine from inception to today. Likely better than most of the member sitting in the pews on Sunday. Not as much as some. Maybe not as much as you.  But it is what I know and lived most of my life. It is the religion that has had the largest impact on me for both good and ill.  It is still the religion I have the most interest in. So sure. It makes sense I am more familiar, and in your words, hold more contempt towards some of it than I do any other.  That should not be surprising. Same for you really. Do you spend time on Catholic, Islamic or Protestant message boards defending those ffaiths?  I think not.

Regarding sexual abuse no that was not the point of my posts.  Sexual abuse is certainly an abusive thing.  But I don't find those in our faith tradition, or any other, justifying abuse based on doctrine (other than perhaps some using plural marriage as an excuse the perpetrate sexual abuse.  The secular persons you brought up in relation to sexual abuse, I don't think there abuse is rooted in their ideology. I think they are simply acting evilly and badly.

 

Are our exchange acrimonious?  Perhaps to some extent. It is the nature of such things. I expect you will continue to defend and be offended by pretty much anything negative that is said about the Church.  I expect I will continue to find things to criticize.  And so it is.  I would still hope though that we could have a sandwich and a diet coke together someday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get what you're after Teancum, and I agree.

IMO, the church has been negligent in not going after people like Thom Harrison, Avraham Gileadi, and Christopher Parret. They did go after Julie Rowe and eventually Chad Daybell. But they are low on the totem pole and only became the way they did because of people like Thom, Avraham and Chris. In a podcast I heard Avraham Gileadi has a book on the shelves of Deseret Book even.  These dudes are just as damaging to the church as the John Dehlin's or RFM's out there, but damaging in a far worse way. People that go off the deep end, can end up killing people who they may think are zombies, or dark people, or even killing loved ones for their own good. You don't see exLDS doing this. 

https://deseretbook.com/t/author/avraham-gileadi

I hope Smac addresses this problem, he still hasn't addressed when I asked about Tim Ballard a few comments back. 

Even Fairlds speaks up about the problem on their commentary on "Preparing a People". 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/home-page/current-events/the-vallow-daybell-trial/preparing-a-people

Or at least addressing the problem with people being extremists in the prepper movement.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Tacenda