|
|
Website © 2005-2011 Compiled With: Caligra 2.0.2  |
|
Containing 4,827 Articles Spanning 341 Topics Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery Online Since January 1, 2005 |
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
|
|
 | Monday, Oct 3, 2011, at 07:09 AM The Mormons Have A New Word--"Rescue." Original Author(s): forestpal EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| I noticed in a couple of talks (when I was passing by in the doorway), that the speakers listed "rescuing people" in their list of virtues. Such as, "The elder missionary couple chose to spend their time helping those in need, rescuing people, fulfilling callings, etc.
Japanese guy, "...he rescued many people. I was one of those he rescued. I was able to rescue my whole family." At first I thought these speakers were talking about tsunami victims, disaster victims, etc. Not! They were saying "rescued" instead of "converted," or "brought the into the church" or "baptized into the gospel." Rescue implies a victim and an adversary. We know that the Mormons are in their own little battle with the rest of the world, so they need to rescue people--from what? From other good families? From freedom and happiness? From life? These converted victims pay dearly in time and money for their supposed "rescue." How dare they! "RESCUED" is OUR ex-Mormon word--when we stopped being victims to their cult. I damned-well RESCUED my children from a cult, and I'm proud of it! The Mormons are not going to take that away from me!!!! Though, maybe we can throw the word "rescue" back into their face: "I was only trying to rescue your child." I was trying to rescue the fast offering collectors, when I told them they were collecting money for a CULT. |
| | Monday, Oct 3, 2011, at 07:28 AM Just Because An "Expert" Says So Doesn't Make It So Original Author(s): Cheryl EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| The most flimsy evidence there is would be that an "expert" said it when experts regularly take opposing points of view on most topics.
Many posters demand "evidence" when someone here voices an opinion or shares an experience. "Evidence" often means quoting some pro or pundit, or providing a link or written reference of some kind. None of that means much in and of itself. What matters is a clear and sensible rationale and credible observable evidence. Remember that finding something in print doesn't make it real or true. Sometimes we have to trust experts, but if the stakes are high, it's usually a good idea to compare more than one opinion. We can check on a professional's experience, their training, and their ethical track records. We were all trained to believe in priesthood leaders and by extension in other authority figures. Corruption and/or ineptitude is very possible at every level of society, top to bottom. The other day at the doctor's office I read an article by someone who writes term papers, masters and PHD theses for lazy and incompetent students. I know rich parents who don't mind buying their kids' way through college and helping kids aquire unearned credentials. There are others who claim to be experts who live in ivory towerland and don't have good common sense or real life experience to draw accurate conclusions. My brother has made it his hobby to check into scam organizations which churn out fradulent diplomas and degrees. Sad to say, there are people in prestigious positions who are totally unqualified. My DH once had to fire an incompetent senior accountant because she knew next to nothing about accounting principles and practices. Turns out her degree was in horticulture and she had lied her way into the job before DH became her boss. This is only one example. He has others just as egregious. I once worked with a "teacher" who knew nothing about education and was eventually fired for faking his credentials and qualifications. My advice is to trust your own judgments and perceptions over supposed experts. Dig a little before you accept expert advice and especially before you hire employees, vote, or join a church. |
| | Tuesday, Oct 4, 2011, at 09:22 AM Mormons Are Objectified In Marriage Original Author(s): eddie EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| The race to the alter is nothing more than a race to sex. This has created a situation where both spouses are objectified sexually early in the marriage. Those who take more time before marriage often move beyond the sexually charged phase before exchanging vows. This may allow them to see the relationship more clearly thus increasing the chance of identifying and weighing incompatibilities.
Though not universal, there are many marriages where the TBM wife does not have full control of her person. It is common for TBM women to be subjugated and assume a role more analogous to a child rather than an adult. This may also lead to controlling relationships where the wife is treated in some regards as the property of the husband. When the husband does the talking for the wife, feels a need to "shield" the wife from the outside world, and be the sole provider then a lop-sided disempowering relationship is in effect. The flip side of this is that the husband can assume the role of bank and ATM machine. The heavy time demands of church callings and career can lead to severely reduced time with spouses thus increasing the percentage of time with the spouse that become some form of business transaction. Time that would be spent chatting about the day, interests, etc becomes less prevalent as the dwindling time together must be used for family business such as activity scheduling, shuttling kids, discussing the budget, etc. This type of arrangement can drain the life out of a marriage very quickly. Because of early marriage, pressures to produce and raise kids while still in school, and church demands, many Mormon marriages never really have a chance to build that strong, authentic person-to-person bond in the first place. The youth of the partners means that they often do not know who they themselves are. The need to fit into the TBM mold also means that they often do not learn who they really are, ever. The cycle continues when those who were raised with suffocating controls in essence are transferred from church and/or father property to husband property. The husband has more autonomy but is generally church property throughout his life. Comparing the lives of the nevermo women at work to the TBM women in my ward and stake presents the starkest contrast. It is a great disservice to these women that they are objectified, infantilized, and stunted in their development. While writing that sentence, it struck me how painfully obvious this should be. To someone in a less misogynistic culture the injustice of it all is evident. Within Mormonism, this disparity and inequity are vigorously defended as somehow being the best for all involved. |
| | Wednesday, Oct 12, 2011, at 11:12 AM Anti-Mormonism: "The Prejudice Of Our Age" Original Author(s): Jeff Ricks EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| There's an article in Deseret News this morning that's titled what this thread is titled. In essence, it's an essay that anti-Mormonism is bigotry. I don't agree. I think being anti-Mormon is but not necessarily anti-Mormonism... but I digress.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70... In the article the author quotes a Slate writer regarding anti-Mormonism and prejudice. One of the quotes is this: "the prejudices you need to work on aren't the ones you recognize in your grandparents' generation. They're the ones you don't recognize in your own generation, and in yourself."Amen to that. The Mormon Church has a long history of being unable to recognize the prejudices of it's own age. At one time it was their prejudice against blacks, and against women rights (which still exists to some extent today), and it's prejudice against Native Americans. Well that's all been put behind them, the Church is quick to say. However, can anyone say Prop 8? The fact that the DN puts such an article in their newspaper is clearly the pot calling the kettle black. Here's another quote from the article regarding prejudice: "You'll know it when you see it, but you won't see it until you know that's what it is."Mormon culture still doesn't seem to know what prejudice is. |
| | Monday, Nov 14, 2011, at 07:55 AM First Presidency Letter, Of All The Things They Could Have Said Original Author(s): Stumbling EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| It's not very often that the First Presidency has something important enough to write to all the members of the Church.
So it was a fairly exciting moment when on Sunday the Branch President announced that he had such a letter to read out. The membership was all ears. Our Prophet (and therefore God) was speaking directly to us. Breath was bated.
Tithing. Pay your tithing. Go to tithing settlement. Mention made of charitable works, humanitarian effort etc but no mention of City Creek nor other land acquisition nor BYU budgets etc. Tithing. Pay your tithing. Go to tithing settlement. That is what Mormon God feels is the most important thing for His Propeht to tell you this week. Tithing. Pay your tithing. Go to tithing settlement. |
| | Wednesday, Nov 16, 2011, at 07:39 AM To TBMS A "Feeling" Is Considered A Valid Argument Original Author(s): freeman EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| The other day I had an interesting conversation with my mum and wife. "Interesting" to me, at least, in how it revealed the cognitive processing of a TBM when confronted with a fact that goes counter to their programming.
I can't remember how we even got onto the topic, but I mentioned how there had been gay general authorities in the past. I was refering of course to Joseph Fielding Smith, the former church Patriarch. (Now, I forget sometimes that my perspective on matters LDS is quite different to my wifes and parents'. I genuinely did not say anything that I believed to be controversial. I wasn't aware of whether or not they knew about this aspect of relatively modern church history, but I certainly didn't expect any kind of reaction. For those interesting in reading about the "outing" of Joseph Fielding Smith, this is a concise history: http://www.affirmation.org/history/jo... ) Anyway, they were both immediately on the offensive against me, like I had just made a slanderous and false accusation against one of their friends. I might as well have accused Tommy Monson of being a pedofile as far as they were concerned. Whatever we were talking about before was irrelevent now - for the next half hour I had to justify my "accusation" against a double-team of TBM anti-logic and anti-reason, where nobody can win because the "testimony" trumps everything. Them: "Who said that? Where did you read it?" Freeman: "I can't recall exactly where I read it." [Truthfully. I wasn't preparing for a battle when I made the passing comment.] Them: "Was it on the internet? Anybody can make something up an put it on the internet." Freeman: "I read it online, yes, but the medium isn't important. It wasn't just "made up", it was documented and researched by a qualified historian." [Freeman is frantically Googling] Freeman: [explains that it was compiled by D. Michael Quinn who had access to many primary sources including the private diaries of general authorities] Them: "Was he excommunicated?" Freeman: "Who? Joseph Fielding Smith or D. Michael Quinn?" Them: "Both?" Freeman: "I believe D. Michael Quinn was, but not specifically for making that claim. It isn't really relevent to the truth of the claim is it?" Them: "Ah, well that explains everything. The historian obviously had an axe to grind, and the general authority can't have been gay [and had sexual relationships] because otherwise he would have been excommunicated. I know how these things work. He would have been excommucated within days of finding out." Freeman: "Are you honestly saying that without any evidence to the contrary, you are disbelieving that he was gay on the grounds that he wasn't - to your knowledge - excommunicated?" Them: "Well, that, and the fact I just don't believe it." Freeman: "Huh?" Them: "My feelings tell me that it isn't true. And that is the only way we can be sure of anything unless we investigate it for ourself by seeing the primary sources directly." Freeman: "So nevermind that a highly regarded professional historian has seen the sources and made obvious conclusions, you would refuse to believe a word he says unless you saw and read the diaries yourself?" [I wonder whether they apply the same burdon of proof requirements to everything else they accept as fact... the Book of Mormon *cough cough* for instance?] Them: "Anybody could have made a claim and written it in a diary or journal, so even that wouldn't prove it was true. Besides, I just can't believe that he wouldn't have been excommunicated, or that the church would be trying to cover it up. If you believe that the church would cover this up this must test your faith. Your faith isn't being challenged by this is it?" [Taken back a bit, I ponder whether she is trying to challenge me to admit that my faith IS tested, or whether she is so confident that it isn't being tested, that she is making me refer to my personal testimony for "proof" that the church is true and D. Michael Quinn must be wrong...] Freeman: "I don't understand why you are connecting a probably gay general authority to the truth of the church. It is possible for the church to be true AND Joseph Fielding Smith to have been gay!" Them: [trying a different approach] "Freeman, there are plenty of people out there with axes to grind against the church, who write and produce anti-Mormon material and put it on the internet. We need to be able to discern the truth by staying close to the spirit. You need to be really careful when you are reading things on the internet. Sometimes people write things that are obviously not true, like about the temple endowment for example..." Freeman: [this sounds interesting] "What do they say about the temple endowment?" Them: "It doesn't matter. I'm not saying. But it is obviously not true. But sometimes you can read things on the internet that might sound plausible, but it is really just anti-Mormon literature. You need to rely on your testimony because the church is true and if you read something that doesn't sit quite right with you then trust your testimony." Freeman: "Is that your argument against the claim I made? That your have a testimony of whether or not he was gay?" Them: "No. I don't believe he was gay because I know the church is true and the spirit tells me that it isn't true." [Conversation tails off. You just can't argue with that! You can't beat a feeling.] |
| | Thursday, Nov 17, 2011, at 07:35 AM Why Doesn't The Morg/LD$ Church Stick To Teaching Healthy Ways Of Behaving Instead Of The "Brainwashing"? Because It's A Cult. Original Author(s): The 1st FreeAtLast EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Why doesn't the Morg/LD$ Church stick to teaching healthy ways of behaving instead of the 'brainwashing'? Because it's a cult.
The Mormon Church isn't interested - at all - in playing a psychologically healthy/nurturing/supportive role in your daughter's life - or anyone else's for that matter. Never forget: the FOUNDATION of Mormonism is deceit. 7-8 generations of Mormon 'prophets' have seen to it that the indoctrination program of the Morg involves not informing Latter-day Saints (of all ages) about the TRUTH (facts) relative to Joseph Smith (consummate liar, manipulator and sexual predator), church history, the BoM, etc. What the LDS Church have always been addicted to is unquestioning obedience in members. The ENTIRE church system is structured to that end, starting with the systematic indoctrination of small children (age 3 on). "Pray, pay and obey" is what cultic Mormonism is ALL about. To what end? To expand the 'one, true' religious corporation of JC and the church's wealth and power and influence. The cultic, ego-driven LDS/Morg agenda was doing pretty well until the Internet came along. You're responsible for your daughter's well-being, including her psychological welfare. If you allow her to be systematically indoctrinated in cultic Mo-ism, she could potentially grow up to be psychologically/emotionally chained to the wounding and manipulative LDS Church and religion. In the very least, she'll be 'programmed' to betray her mind - i.e., to unconsciously undermine her rational/critical thinking, which naturally buds and grows in children as they begin to question things like the existence of Santa Claus - when she's confronted by facts that do not support so-called 'true' Morg teachings. The typical result of the cultic LDS 'programming' process is a lack of confidence in one's mind and judgments (and negative consequences therefrom) and an unconscious surrendering of one's individual will to that of the LDS 'group mind/will'. In short, a 'Mo-bot' who's afraid to assert her/his right to ALWAYS think for herself/himself and scrutinize other people's beliefs. Over the years, layers of cultic Mormon 'programming' accumulate psychologically on top of the true self of an individual. The result has been - and continues to be - people in conflict (at war) with themselves. To 'just have faith' requires shoving all the 'faith'-disrupting facts and observed and experienced reality into a mental closet and slamming the door shut (trying to, at least). But over the years there is so much stuff in the closet, that it periodically forces its way out. Don't subject your daughter to this kind of inner distrust, conflict, poor self-esteem, lack of mental confidence, fear of asserting one's wishes and speaking one's truth, etc., etc. I found out this week on PostMormon.org that there was a 36-year-old woman who'd been raised in cultic Mormonism from birth. She was single (never good in the marriage-and-family-obsessed LDS Church) and only recently discovered that Mo-ism was (is) a sham and that the Morg had deceived her for decades. She killed herself. Many sensitive people deeply wounded by cultic Mormonism have also taken their lives. You need to act to protect your daughter. She won't understand at this point in her life, but when she's older, you can explain why you intervened. Here's info. about how cultic Mo-ism affects people psychologically and what they can do to liberate themselves: http://members.shaw.ca/blair_watson/ |
| | Monday, Nov 21, 2011, at 08:33 AM How The Mormon Leaders Characterize Abuse As Loving Concern And Discipline Original Author(s): They don't want me back EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| I was just thinking about all the pretty, elegant words spoken at LDS conferences and from the podiums of meeting houses teaching members how virtuous it is to submit the abuses of the Corporation know as the “the Mormon Church”.
http://lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng LDS leaders teach members that it is acceptable for Church representatives it invade their personal boundaries by expecting inappropriate personal questions to be asked and worse answered. How disfellowship of the apostate takes away the voice of the person who sees through the veneer and realizes the real purpose of the Church organization and is not allowed to speak of it. Silencing the victim, how convenient. How members are taught how virtuous it is to put aside their responsibility for taking care of and protecting personal resources of time, money, talent and personal boundaries and allow all their resources to be exploited by the abusive organization. I’m sure the list goes on…… |
| | Monday, Nov 28, 2011, at 09:25 AM Mormonism Sells Us What We Already Have Original Author(s): Strykary EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| I was mindlessly surfing the internet today, cup of coffee in hand, when I came across an article in the Los Angeles times. It was written back in July, so forgive me if this has been posted already. Anyways, in the article, the concept of our need for religion as an intrinsic trait of humanity is discussed. Many people believe that God created man; I personally hold the opinion that it is the other way around. At the end of the first page of the article, the author cites a study performed by Yale psychologist, Paul Bloom. In that study, Bloom and his colleagues found that infants and young children have an innate sense of morality. The author also cites Michael Tomasello, who states that we are born with a limited sense of morality and altruism, but that we are later educated to become self-interested.
One of the things that stands out about Mormonism and religion in general is that they claim that we cannot be moral without some form of higher power. That morality wasn't invented by man, but by some God or Gods. It's truly frightening how easy it is to sell people what they already had at one point in their life. What Mormonism does to people, strip them of their self worth and project it on the organization itself, is horrendous. There are so many asinine rules within Mormonism that distract many people from truly being the best people they can be. I realize that in many instances morality is subjective, but the simple adage “don't be a dick,” shouldn't be pushed aside for silly things such as not masturbating or the prohibition of certain beverages. In my short time on this planet, I've found that this simple concept, the golden rule, is most often pushed aside for other asinine moral values. Mormonism tells us we're worthless sinners, that without a higher power we cannot live peaceful, happy lives. It breaks us down, strips us of our self worth and replaces it with rules created by a conniving conman and a soulless corporation. Once they've accomplished that, they tell us that we are better than everyone else, but that we're worthless if we do not follow their 613 guidelines to absolute perfection. We must deny our own bodily functions to remain righteous. We must pay 10% of our gross income to a cold and detached bureaucracy. We must devote our lives to an institution which gives very little in return for our efforts. Our reward for doing these things is meager, but is what so many base their entire lives on. Our reward is self worth, supplied by an institution hiding behind an imaginary figure. It's an incredibly parasitic relationship which strangles some of its victims to death. According to the studies I referenced above, we have some sense of morality at birth, and those who desire to manipulate and fleece others rob us of our self concept by telling us that we would be evil without them, and they replace our self concept with one of their own design. Mormonism made me deny myself, it told me I was terrible when I was not, and realizing this has brought color to my life. Here's the LA Times article for anyone who is interested: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/... |
| | Monday, Dec 5, 2011, at 10:57 AM Mormon Apologists: What's Left? Or, What's Next? Original Author(s): sock puppet EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| The Mormon apologetic prophet, GBH, was willing to toss out the teachings that God was once like mankind now is (the significant doctrinal teaching of JSJr at his last GC, April 1844) on Larry King Live.
NAMIRS and Sorenson are willing to toss out the long held position of the LDS Church that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is situate in upstate New York, on the flimsiest of excuses--an unsigned fax from FP office staffer Carla Ogden, quoting a compendium put together at BYU (Encyclopedia of Mormonism). Gone are the days that the American Indians are the descendants of the Book of Mormon Lamanites. No more current Lamanite Nation. Gone are the claims that the BoAbr was linguistically translated from the papyrus and the KEP are the proof of it (now that it is obvious that the KEP proves it was not a linguistic translation). Gone is the facade that diverted attention from the real facts that JSJr was looking at a little stone, face down into the crown of a hat in 'translating' the Book of Mormon. (Thanks, Trey Parker!) Etc, etc, etc. Now, Mormon apopologists (of any level), please do tell us what your 'closer looks' will next debunk that is currently being taught in the correlated manuals coming out of the COB or in the official introductions, etc. Maybe you could fathom for us different horizons, namely, what you expect to debunk in the next 10 years, in the next 20 years, and in the next 30 years, respectively. If you are offended by the question or not willing to share with us your future plans, perhaps you could give us a listing of those aspects of Mormon teachings you claim presently will never be debunked, those 'eternal truths'. (You might want to vet each one out as not being falsifiable per any forensic techniques that mankind has currently at its disposal and those potential ones that science is yet working on developing, just to try to make your list impervious to the ravages of human innovation in the future.) We're waiting. Curious minds want to know. |
| | Monday, Dec 12, 2011, at 07:16 AM Santa Isn't The Bad Guy Original Author(s): Cheryl EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| There's no need to ban him from your family unless you as the parent personally hate him.
In that case, if you can't play along and enjoy the fun with your child, then tell your child, "Many people like to pretend about Santa. That isn't what we do in this family." But if you loved Santa as a kid and still have a sense of yourthful wonder, Santa can add fun and a sense of happy imagination to this season and probably to your child's love of family traditions. The problem some parents have is that they go at the myth like they force feed cultism. Instead of letting the child's imagination lead them, they force the issue. They also use Santa like a club. "You better be good or Santa will hate you and you'll be the only kid on the street who get's coal in their stocking." Shame has no healthy part in enjoying myths. Neither does extremism. I don't suggest you buy a costume for Dad or climb on the roof and act out reindeer hoofbeats. Let kids use their own imaginations like you let them enjoy playing with their toys. Children give up toys for more grownup pursuits as they are ready. That's why there are age suggestions on the packages. I taught nursery school through third grade for many years and saw the value in children having imaginary friends. By third grade most were understanding the difference between real and makebelieve. It's a process that takes several years. Mormon parents force kids to think that HF, HG, golden plates, temple magic are real. These are not childhood fantasies that nourish imaginations and help kids learn about themselves, about real and makebelieve, or about the spirit of universal love and giving. If it were true that mormon doctrine helped kids, these ideas would have caught on with kids worldwide. There would be versions of these ideas in children's stories and imagination everywhere just like there are versions of Santa in so many cultures. The worst parenting in the mormon culture prevents children from sorting through these mormon stories and figuring out that they are not a real part of history or the world. Mormon parents and the mormon church punish children who ask questions and bring up flaws of logic. In fact they say that they as parents won't love the kids as much and they will not go to the highest heaven if they ask questions or don't accept canned answers. Threats are not a good way to teach love, giving, or how to accept gifts with a grateful attitude. Don't make Santa into a bad guy like the mormon god. As children talk about how Santa couldn't really do this or that, praise them. Say, "I'm glad to see you're thinking. Keep working on those ideas." Santa is how I reasoned my way out of mormonism and it could help other mormon kids if parents would let them use their brains. It's unrealistic to expect children to have adult perceptions when they can't even see out the window without a booster seat. Imaginary friends and play are how kids test out ideas and form concepts. They can't learn about the world by driving a real truck, but they can imagine and learn about it and about themselves by playing with trucks. Taking that experience away from them is unnatural and unhealthy. For parents who hate Santa, I would suggest finding books with imaginary friends and myths but not the Santa baggage. Let kids enjoy fairies or thinking about having wishes, about gnomes and other secret imaginary friends. Go to the library with them and find books that appeal to them and have talking animals and outlandish outcomes. There is nothing wrong with kids being kids and enjoying make beielve. Imaginary friends are a healthy and natural part of childhood. |
| | Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011, at 11:51 AM Mormon Church Marquee: "Visitors Welcome" Original Author(s): Infymus EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Outside of each Mormon cult building is a sign that reads "Visitors Welcome". Sometimes it is on the building under the cult insignia, or, on a useless, never changing marquee.
Mormon cult buildings are always on lock down. The only time you can enter the building in a "Visitor" sort of way is on a Sunday. A non-Mormon who wishes to worship God in a Mormon cult building has to wait until Sunday to do so, and then, has to wait for the appropriate time to enter the chapel. The chapel is reserved for Sacrament meetings, which depending on the number of "Wards" in a building could be 3 to 5 times a day throughout the day - at any hour. If the non-Mormon manages to match the right day with the right time and enter a Sacrament meeting, then a prescribed, correlated meeting will take place. The chance of the congregation singing "Praise to the Man", or "Hie Unto Kolob" are at least 30%. The chances of hearing about paying tithing will be at least 80%. The chances of hearing about Joseph Smith are at least 20-30%. The probability of the non-Member hearing a talk about the Holy Ghost helping the member find their car keys is, well, quite high. And last but not least, the single Ward member that always bares his testimony with a flood of tears will inevitably waste 15 minutes of time. If the non-Mormon manages to stomach the entire hour (and perhaps without getting cheerios thrown at him by the bored child in front of him), he will immediately be set upon by Ward members to "press the flesh", take names, set up interviews, get home teachers involved and work hard to get a Book of Mormon into his hands before he leaves the building. If a name, phone number or address can be achieved, home teachers, the Bishopric, the Missionaries, or God help the guy - all three - will end up on his doorstep. If the non-Mormon manages to match the right day with the right time and enter the Chapel, but not during Sacrament - and is caught, the same flesh pressing above will happen, except he'll be whisked away to Sunday School, Elder's Quorum or Gospel Doctrine classes. At that point, those classes will turn into testimony meetings. Alternately... A non-Mormon (and even non-Catholic) who wishes to worship God in a Catholic church can enter a Catholic church building during regular hours (and in some cases past that) Monday through Sunday, enter the chapel, sit at a pew and worship in peace - without being molested at all by anyone. Service times are posted regularly for those so inclined to participate. If by chance a Priest does press the flesh, generally it is a welcome and a thank you. No numbers are asked for, no Priests asking for names, phone numbers and addresses. No bibles thrust into his hands. Oh yes, Visitors are most definitely welcome at the Mormon cult. If you can stomach it. |
| | Friday, Dec 16, 2011, at 01:28 PM Sandra Tanner And Miracles Original Author(s): FT EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Steve Benson argues that miracles are impossible and that Sandra Tanner is inconsistent to apply cool reasoning and logic to reject Mormonism and yet embrace Christianity.
Many atheists reject the concept of miracles because miracles violate the laws of nature. The strongest argument against miracles was advanced by David Hume. He argued that since a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature which we know through experience, no rational person can believe in miracles. D’Souza took on this argument in a recent book. D'Souza suggests that through Hume’s own reasoning, this argument does not hold up, since Hume himself argued that scientific laws are empirically unverifiable. For example, the speed of light can be measured a million times at a certain value, but we cannot know with absolute certainty that it will not change in the next measurement, or that the speed of light was not different at some point in the past. We also don't know whether somewhere else in the universe light travels at a different speed. Hume also argued that there is no logical connection between cause and effect. We can see event B following event A millions of times, but we can never be absolutely sure that event A was the cause of event. D’Souza argues that this leaves room for miracles; exceptions where the natural laws of science (which we cannot know for sure anyway) do not hold up as we normally expect them to. C.S. Lewis and call miracles additions to natural laws. Jesus’ walk on water can be accepted in the same way: as God Incarnate, He provided some extra forces to keep himself afloat. In short, one may accept the possibility of miracles as a whole but at the same time keep a logical and skeptical mind. Some theists, like myself, constantly question. In fact, studying/debating TBMs has in itself taught me a great deal about human reasoning, the capacity for self-deception and the constant need to challenge assumptions and arguments. I have to believe Sandra Tanner didn't reject Mormonism for its miracle claims. If you permit the existence of a god, as many smart people do, then you can rationally allow for the miraculous. This rational allowance can be strengthened if you have experienced something in your life which you believe to be miraculous. So, for me, an attack on Christianity's miracle claims is a weak attack. The better attack, if you wish to make it, is to take on questions such as whether there is any archaeological evidence of the Biblical exodus. The limitation on this type of attack is that the Bible has proven to be factually accurate in many, many ways....down to, for example, the identities of Babylonian functionaries which can be verified in other historical records. So, Sandra Tanner was not being inconsistent. The rational tools one uses to reject Mormonism do not lead inexorably to rejection of all religion. |