RayAgostini wrote:
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:
Even resentment over the LDS practice of Bishop's interviews as a teenager flowing from the LDS doctrine of discernment or the rules and stigma associated with modesty are intellectual enough to drive someone away, like the illogical piercings rule.
You have a very broad take on what "intellectual reasons" are. In that category, we could also include Thomas Marsh's "milk apostasy" (I know there's a lot of legend behind this) as "intellectual reasons". No, you're whipping the wrong horse.
I like how you refuse to deal with the rest of my post. I don't feel that my take is particularly broad and if you like I am happy to flesh out the above examples to make them clear to you. The commandment from the LDS prophet Gordon Hinckley that the only piercing that the exalted homosapien in the sky is happy with is women having one pair of conservative piercings in their earlobes makes no sense. If piercings are offensive to him and the justification is that a body is a temple and piercings desecrate that temple then it should apply to all of them.
It is obvious that the corporate church simply wants to control its image and that is the only reason for the "commandment" which is so important one apostle recommended ending your relationship if your partner isn't following the prophet. A person could come to the conclusion that there is no way a creator of the universe could ever care about piercings and the LDS church is obviously wrong about the issue.
Likewise those who have seen the gift of discernment utterly fail could likewise come to the conclusion that the LDS Church isn't true like the prospective missionary who lies through his mission interviews sends off his papers and receives a call from the prophet to serve. Or child who is being systematically abused while their father continues to receive temple recommends and be placed in callings where others are placed at risk. It would be reasonable for them to come to the conclusion that the gift of discernment doesn't work and is a lie.
How are any of the above examples not using their intellect to make a judgment that the Church isn't what it claims to be based on their experiences? Or on the Church's illogical teachings? You would have understood the point I was making if you'd have bothered to read the whole of my original post instead of cherry picking the one line you thought you could knock down as a strawman (which if you are trying to emulate your apologist heros you are doing a good job of). The point is that intellectual issues are the issues that cause people to think and to come to the conclusion the church isn't what it claims to be. They aren't some narrow nitpicking point that FAIR/FARMS/MI or Dan Peterson want to claim they are so they can argue anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusions they do isn't intellectual enough.
The milk apostasy story is a good example because Thomas Marsh did have intellectual reasons to leave. The main one being that the leaders of the Church were preaching violent sermons while danites were carrying out vicious attacks. Is that reason intellectual enough for you Ray?
RayAgostini wrote:
That's not what we're talking about, Hasa,
this is what we're talking about:
Quote:
Daniel Peterson on August 29, 2011 at 3:21 am
I don’t do empathy, apparently.
The fact is that most members don’t know much about their history.
Books on Mormon history sell a few hundred copies. A few thousand if they’re really successful. Journals devoted wholly or in part to Mormon history have subscriber lists in the same numerical range. This in a Church with millions of members.
Thus, it’s very easy for members to be blindsided by things that they could have known.
A case in point: I spent an hour or so on the phone with a very angry and profoundly disaffected member several years ago, who had just learned that there are multiple accounts of the First Vision. The Church, he said, had kept this fact from him. I pointed out that BYU Studies and Dialogue and the Journal of Mormon History and even the Ensign and other journals had published these accounts and had published discussions of them, and that at least two or three books from Deseret Book and Bookcraft had treated the subject and published the texts. He continued, nonetheless, to insist that the Church had kept him in the dark.
This strikes me as quite unjust.
Could the Church do a better job of teaching its history? Yes. Could the general membership be more curious about the history of the Church? Absolutely yes. There are excellent resources that are very easily accessible.
And, for the record, I should not close without saying that, in my judgment, a deep and detailed knowledge of Mormon history is not at all antithetical to a firm conviction of the truth of Mormon claims.
No, Ray we aren't talking about Daniel Peterson's lame attempt to go into persecution complex mode. What we are talking about is what sparked people making the comments that they did which was his statement
here:
Daniel Peterson wrote:
I don't know what the REAL issue is for you. Obviously we're not going to be able to help you and I wish you the best, but there's something else going on here cause these issues you've raised for us are non-issues. They're just really easy to deal with and you're still clinging to them. So, I don't get it, good luck, wish you all the best. If I'd been with him face to face, if I'd had more time with him maybe we could have done more maybe I would have eventually understood that the real issue was. I won't say that every departure from faith has to do with sin, a lot of them do though. I remember years ago one of the things that got me involved in this was a certain couple that I'd known somewhat and all of a sudden they were circulating a certain letter announcing why they were leaving the Church it had to do with the Salamander letter and things like that and Todd Compton and I of all people got together. I did most of it, but he helped me write kind of an open letter response because they were circulating this to new converts and trying to take people out of the Church with 'em and uh they said they were very angry we would respond that way. I thought it was kind of funny because why is it legitimate for you to write an open letter, and not legitimate for me to write one. I don't get it but um, uh, they said look the Mormons are going to claim we sinned and that's why we left the Church and it's a lie, it's not true. Well in this particular case I found out about a year later that in fact he had been having an affair and his wife found out and then she had a revenge affair and then they both suddenly discovered the Church wasn't true. I'm not going to say that happens every time, I'm not going to make that accusation, but the fact is we aren't computers we aren't thinking machines and everything we are and everything we are doing goes into playing a role in terms of our overall world view orientation. It's not purely intellectual so I can help on some levels, I can't help on all levels.
His innuendo that a lot of people leave due to sin while stating only a few people leave due to reasons that he deems to be "intellectual" and that he has answers so they must have some other "real" issue like he states above in that video is ridiculous. Do you honestly defend that statement?? So what was your real issue Ray? You met with DCP and you weren't convinced so you must have some real issue other than that the arguments aren't convincing. I could make a similar statement to the one made by DCP as follows:
Message For Daniel Peterson wrote:
I don't know what the REAL issue is with someone who clicks a link to ass shaking and boners videos. Obviously we're not going to be able to help you and I wish you the best, but there's something else going on here cause clicking on that link for us is a non-issue. It's just really easy to deal with, you wanted to watch the video , you were curious and you're still clinging to all these excuses. So, I don't get it, good luck, wish you all the best. If I'd been with Daniel Peterson face to face, if I'd had more time with him maybe I could have done more and maybe I would have eventually understood that the real reason for clicking that link was. I won't say that every mormon caught clicking on an ass shaking boner video on Socialcam watches porn when no one is looking, a lot of them do though. I remember years ago a certain friend that I'd known somewhat and all of a sudden Socialcam was announcing on Facebook they were watching racy videos and it had to do with ass shaking and things like that. I did most of it, but a friend helped me write comments in response on facebook because it was circulating everywhere to everyone on facebook. This friend said he was very angry we would respond that way. I thought it was kind of funny because why is it legitimate for you to post on facebook through Socialcam ass shaking links, and not legitimate for me to write about it in the comments? I don't get it but um, uh, he said look people are going to claim I watch porn and it's a lie, it's not true. Well in this particular case I found out about a year later that in fact he had been watching porn and then he suddenly got caught on facebook watching ass shaking videos on Socialcam, and left facebook. I'm not going to say that happens every time, I'm not going to make that accusation, but the fact is we aren't computers we aren't thinking machines and everything we are and everything we are doing goes into playing a role in terms of our overall world view orientation. It's not purely intellectual so I can help on some levels, I can't help on all levels.
See how above I haven't accused Daniel Peterson of watching porn, but have insinuated that a lot of people who get caught on Socialcam watching risque videos are also watching porn when no one is looking? There could be hundreds of reasons for clicking on that link, but for all intents and purposes do you see what the kind of talk Daniel Peterson is engaging in does? and can you see why people who are being accused of being in the majority of sinners might not like that? How it might not be true? That is the real issue here.
Thanks,
Hasa Diga Eebowai
