Mormon church wanted 'plausible deniability' on anti-gay effort
John Manning
Mormon church wanted 'plausible deniability' on anti-gay effort
The Mormon church worked to hide its involvement in the 2008 effort
to ban gay marriage in California, telling the Proposition 8 campaign
that it wanted "plausible deniability" in its connections with the
movement, documents revealed in a California courtroom Wednesday show.
In the seventh day of testimony in the landmark gay-marriage trial in
San Francisco, lawyers for the gay-rights side presented emails showing
"close links between the Proposition 8 campaign and leaders of the
Catholic and Mormon churches," the Los Angeles Times reported.
One key email that got the attention of Julia Rosen at the Prop 8 Trial
Tracker blog was one between officials of the Church of Latter-Day
Saints and the Proposition 8 campaign, which read in part:
With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from
campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to
provide *plausible deniability* or respectable distance so as not to
show that church is directly involved.
"Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes
to disguise their involvement in the public realm," Rosen wrote. "The
LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most
favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have
hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8."
Other documents introduced into evidence -- over the objections of
lawyers defending Proposition 8 -- showed that the Catholic Church
"played a substantial role in providing volunteers and money to get the
measure qualified for the ballot," the Times reports.
Documents also showed that the Mormon church provided "financial,
organizational and management contributions" to the Prop 8 effort, which
passed with a bare majority of the California vote in the 2008 election.
The Mormon church reportedly held a teleconference call with all but two
of the 161 Mormon leaders in California, telling them to urge
churchgoers to donate $30 each to the effort to end gay marriage in
California, which had been effectively legalized by a state court ruling
earlier in 2008.
And there were reportedly more than 20,000 members of the Mormon church
knocking on doors for the Prop 8 campaign in the last weeks before the
election.
"The line where the LDS Church stopped and the ProtectMarriage.com
campaign began was so fuzzy as to subsume the distinction," Brian
Leubitz wrote at Prop 8 Trial Tracker.
Lawyers for the supporters of the gay-marriage ban fought to keep the
emails from being entered into evidence, arguing that "it tramples on
the right of the churches to communicate among themselves," according to
Howard Mintz at the San Jose Mercury-News' live blog.
"This is a political campaign, and it was out in the open," the judge
said in overruling the objection.
Opponents of Prop 8 launched the trial on constitutional grounds,
arguing that a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is
illegitimate under the federal Constitution. Whatever the outcome, the
case is expected to reach the Supreme Court.
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
You
John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> The Mormon church reportedly held a teleconference call with all but two
> of the 161 Mormon leaders in California, telling them to urge
> churchgoers to donate $30 each to the effort to end gay marriage in
> California, which had been effectively legalized by a state court ruling
> earlier in 2008.
Now here is that Eminent Religious Scholar Johnnie-Boy Manning putting
forth his Total Speculation of some theoretical Teleconference that may
or may not have taken place, as FACT... Where are your FACTS Johnnie,
Dates, Times, Phone Numbers, Names of actual Persons Involved????
Inquiring Minds want to Know.... Or are you just blowing smoke, and
hiding behind mirrors, as usual....
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article <YK2dnYsibOdkH8XWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdn...@giganews.com>,
According to evidence submitted at trial, one key email between
officials of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Proposition 8
campaign read in part:
"With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from
campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to
provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to
show that church is directly involved."
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
So there you have it, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
explaining how they planned to lie.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
http://www.google.com/profiles/DuwayneAnderson
You
<1ddb1eb5-39e2-4cd3...@c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh now we got another Dufus, standing up for that Eminent Religious
Scholar Johnnie-Boy Manning, but he doesn't present ANY FACTS, about
this supposed Teleconference.... that supposedly took place... Where are
the Names, Phone Numbers, you know... The FACTS.... Just another loser,
with nothing but HOT AIR...... You need to wash that BIG Red "L" off
your forehead, Dwayne... It is a dead giveaway.....
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article
Who can't read, apparently.
> standing up for that Eminent Religious
> Scholar Johnnie-Boy Manning,
No.... quoting from court proceedings.
> but he doesn't present ANY FACTS,
They were in the hyperlink you ignored.
According to evidence submitted at trial, one key email between
officials of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Proposition 8
described how, "With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points
will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead
so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as
not to show that church is directly involved."
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
So there you have it, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
explaining how they planned to lie.
> about
> this supposed Teleconference.... that supposedly took place... Where are
> the Names, Phone Numbers, you know... The FACTS.... Just another loser,
> with nothing but HOT AIR...... You need to wash that BIG Red "L" off
> your forehead, Dwayne... It is a dead giveaway.....
The LDS Church really should be ashamed of itself -- and a lot of its
members, too.
You
<6f91145b-57a0-4a83...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, you present a News Story, about evidence of an eMail, "allegedly"
sent by someone in the LDS Church, to someone in the Prop 8 Campaign,
that states something like the above statement from the News Story....
That is ALL Third Hand material, DUFUS... FACTS, aren't Third Hand
Material... FACTS, would be a copy of the eMail, including Headers, that
can be verified... and I have NEVER disputed that such an alleged eMail
could have been sent, by someone in the LDS church.... what I dispute
is, that Eminent Religious Scholar Johnnie-Boy Manning's Statements
concerning some supposed Teleconference that took place sometime in the
past to which he presents, NO FACTS, about, WHO, WHERE, WHEN, and What
was said, but just alleges that it was, what he stated it was.... No
FACTS, verifiable, or otherwise..... NO Names, No Phone Numbers, no
Transcripts.... NO FACTS... That BIG RED "L" on your forehead is getting
bigger, like Pinoccio's Nose....
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article
The origin of the email was presented in court, as well as it's
contents. And the defense didn't question the accuracy of the origin,
either. Here's the story:
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
Why are you defending people that conspired to lie? Lying is against
the law of god, you know. It seems you have a higher allegiance to
your church than to morality.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
You
<552e434b-3c3b-4e2d...@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The origin of the email was presented in court, as well as it's
> contents. And the defense didn't question the accuracy of the origin,
> either. Here's the story:
>
> http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
>
> Why are you defending people that conspired to lie? Lying is against
> the law of god, you know. It seems you have a higher allegiance to
> your church than to morality.
>
> <snip to end>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
You keep talking about some eMail presented in Court.... However if you
go BACK to the Original Post, and my Original Reply, I am talking about
the OP's statements about some mythical Teleconference that he alleges
took place... that is MY dispute... Not something about so eMail
presented in Court.... and YOU have NEVER shown ANY FACTS concerning this
alleged Teleconference, have you... NO, I thought not... Again, NO
FACTS.... Maybe I should just label you "Duwayne NO FACTS Anderson".....
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article
> Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The origin of the email was presented in court, as well as it's
> > contents. And the defense didn't question the accuracy of the origin,
> > either. Here's the story:
>
> >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
>
> > Why are you defending people that conspired to lie? Lying is against
> > the law of god, you know. It seems you have a higher allegiance to
> > your church than to morality.
>
> > <snip to end>
>
> > Duwayne Anderson
>
> You keep talking about some eMail presented in Court....
Hey! He finally read the link. Well, what'da know?
> However if you
> go BACK to the Original Post, and my Original Reply, I am talking about
> the OP's statements about some mythical Teleconference that he alleges
> took place... that is MY dispute... Not something about so eMail
> presented in Court.... and YOU have NEVER shown ANY FACTS concerning this
> alleged Teleconference, have you... NO, I thought not... Again, NO
> FACTS.... Maybe I should just label you "Duwayne NO FACTS Anderson".....
And then he fell off the wagon.
Gene Fuller
"You" <y...@shadow.orgs> wrote in message
news:you-1B76B6.1...@unknown.hwng.net...
Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability of sayng
anything important. <G>
Curmudgeon
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability of sayng
> anything important. <G>
That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing Mormons,"
where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
After all, I posted a link to the story describing the evidence
admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" can do
little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important."
Here's the link to that story, again:
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is that the
issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
Mormon apologists. It doesn't seem to matter at all to "You" and
Fuller that their church lied. That doesn't seem to bother them at
all. Rather, it seems the most important thing for "You" and Fuller
is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if they
have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Brandon
wrote:
I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning for
posting something on-topic and 2) you Duwayne for continuing to fight
the good fight.
The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues to
fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watershed
civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
losing battle. And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too many
times to count. I vividly remember my reaction to some of those
threads (John Taylor and polygamy anyone?) and certainly felt much
anger at the time. I expressed it in the form of sarcasm, parody,
satire ... and often, when humor couldn't dull my pain, pure and naked
derision. If I have any regrets about those comments, it is that they
should have more often been directed at leaders of the LDS Church,
which is after all, the main source of perpetuating this culture of
deception, prevarication, misdirection, obfuscation and, let's call
this pig what it is: lying.
Someone -- and I find it amusing that there is some debate as to whom
-- once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." One thing
I appreciated when I read through the proceedings of Perry v.
Schwarzenegger was how much of the plaintiffs' case was built on
them. And not just the sheer volume of numeric data they submitted
into evidence, but the extent to which their expert witnesses
explained the methodology used to obtain them, and the conclusions
that could be determined from them.
So powerful were these data that even the defendants' two expert
witnesses could not and did not convincingly refute the major points
of the plaintiffs' case. Note even further that two (I think that's
right) of the defendants' witnesses were dropped from the case after
their depositions because they had the intellectual and moral
integrity to review a set of numbers and draw the same conclusion that
any honest social scientist worth their salt would: the Yes on 8
advanced their campaign on baseless falsehoods.
Note that I didn't say lies. So, here's my main thesis and the real
reason for my post. Since I've been away from ARM, and especially
recently as I've been watching this issue unfold, I've come to believe
that the grassroots, in-the-trenches supporters of any creed, cause,
issue or campaign fervently believe that they are spreading truth.
Further, when such supporters fully believe in what they represent,
many become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own leaders
lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly clear
that lies were told.
This dynamic can go pretty far up the hierarchy of an organization, be
it a church, cause, or campaign organization. I have an anecdotal
piece of evidence to offer in support. One of the witness testimonies
in Perry v. Schwarzenegger came from a witness named Dr. Hak-Shing
William Tam. By way of background, Dr. Tam was a Yes on Prop. 8
supporter, and secretary of one of the organizations in the Yes on 8
coalition. Not a major leader in the campaign, but a mid-level
supporter with extensive contacts in various California Asian
Christian organizations. According to his testimony, his
organization's efforts accounted for about 20,000 of the signatures
that put Prop. 8 on the ballot. Even though he was a Prop. 8
supporter, he was called to the stand as witness by the plaintiffs,
something the defendants' counsel desperately sought to block. Here's
an excerpt:
[Boies] You believe that after Netherlands legalized same-sex
marriage, the Netherlands went on after that to legalize incest
and polygamy?
[Tam] It says here "to date." It does not say something caused
the other to happen. However, it shows the moral decay of a
liberal country in their views of sex.
[Boies] You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was
legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy.
Whether that was causal or not, you're saying that's
what happened after same sex was legalized, correct, same-sex
marriage?
[Tam] Yeah, look at the date. It's -- polygamy happens
afterwards.
[Boies] Who told you that, sir? Where did you get that idea?
[Tam] It's in the internet.
[Boies] In the internet?
[Tam] Yeah.
[Boies] Somewhere out in the internet it says that the Netherlands
legalized incest and polygamy in 2005?
[Tam] Frankly, I did not write this, all right? Polygamy was
legalized in 2005. Another person in the organization found it
and he showed me that.
Now, it could be that Dr. Tam is a rotten lying bastard. Certainly,
things come out of his mouth that I consider filth. Or in this
specific case, absurd to the point of hilarity. But this witness is
one whose testimony I read every single word of because I simply could
not tear myself away from it, at the very least for the sheer
entertainment value. And even though I loathe his visceral contempt
of liberal countries and their attendant moral decay, having read his
entire testimony I believe the man is sincere -- he's a father of
young children, a man of deep and abiding believe in God, a patriotic
citizen admirably motivated to action, and he earnestly believes that
allowing gay people to get married is a significant threat to his
family. And that thought invokes in me a measure of sympathy and
respect -- deep though I may need to dig to find it, because it's a
really, seriously, appallingly ludicrous point of view.
With all that foundation laid, and in the spirit of friendly debate in
the best and finest tradition of ARM (and ARMF since we're cross
posting this one), I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue
of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
apologists." Now, I don't know this "You" character, but when I think
about Gene Fuller, Woody Brison, Charles Dowis, Diana and others, I
would say that ethics and morality are just as important to them as
they are to Duwayne and myself. But they have very different ethics
and morality. I find many of their ethics repugnant, and much of
their morality illogical, silly, damaging and dangerous. As far as I
know, none of the apologists I've listed are politicians (or General
Authorities), where lack of a moral compass is a requirement (I jest,
I jest), so here, this one time in the public record I'll cut them
some slack in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they can for once
prove Duwayne wrong.
Stranger things have happened.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<d627a67c-f4d8-46f4...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Brandon <brando...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 9:24=A0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 8:04=A0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability of sayn=
> g
> > > anything important. <G>
> >
> > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing Mormons,"
> > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
> >
> > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the evidence
> > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" can do
> > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important."
> >
> > Here's the link to that story, again:
> >
> > http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
> >
> > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is that the
> > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
> > Mormon apologists. =A0It doesn't seem to matter at all to "You" and
> > Fuller that their church lied. =A0That doesn't seem to bother them at
> > all. =A0Rather, it seems the most important thing for "You" and Fuller
> > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if they
> > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
> >
> > DuwayneAnderson
> > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > science"
> > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
>
> I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning for
> posting something on-topic and 2) you Duwayne for continuing to fight
> the good fight.
>
> The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues to
> fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watershed
> civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
> losing battle. And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
>
> We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too many
> times to count.
� "... We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, the
cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character that
you can mention."
--- Brigham Young
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
---
I see your point, Xan.
And, furthering your argument, I think you've just proven that the
Nazis were moral, ethical and patriotic people. After all, the men
who served in the Third Reich were fathers of young children, highly
patriotic, and doing what they thought was the morally and ethically
right thing to do. It's just that they had a *different* morality and
a *different* ethics -- where killing women and children was okay, as
long as they were Jews. My seminary teacher had the same sort of
"ethical" standards, but with a slightly different twist. For him it
was a good thing for Moses and the Israelite to kill the Midianite
women and children (see Numbers 31) because god commanded it. So it
seems, from your point of view, as long as one is sincere one is
automatically moral and ethical.
Wouldn't you agree?
Okay. Perhaps not.
Look. When I said "that the issue of ethics and morality seems
completely unimportant to the Mormon apologists." I meant exactly what
I said. I *SEEMS* that way. It wasn't a declarative statement, but
one of impressions. And it should be clear to any reasonable person
that the "ethics" and "morality" I was talking about was one of common
decent, and not the bastardized form found in Mormonism where lying
for god is a good thing.
Furthermore, the lying involved in Prop 8 should not be viewed in
isolation. It needs to be viewed in the context of a long history of
Mormon lying. From the day Joseph Smith lied about polygamy
http://1857massacre.com/MMM/lyingforthelord.htm
to the time Gordon B. Hickley lied about the doctrine that god was
once a man,
http://www.lds-mormon.com/gbh.shtml
To Paul H. Dunn's fabricated lies about his war service (and other
stories)
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_paulhdunn.html
lying has been a tradition in Mormonism whenever the faithful feel
that the church is under attack.
Duwayne Anderson
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> So, here's my main thesis and the real
> reason for my post. Since I've been away from ARM, and especially
> recently as I've been watching this issue unfold, I've come to believe
> that the grassroots, in-the-trenches supporters of any creed, cause,
> issue or campaign fervently believe that they are spreading truth.
I think I would agree in general with regard to the "grassroots." For
example, when Mormons were busy supporting institutionalized racism in
America, opposing the Civil Rights movement, etc., they really did
believe that "those Negroes" were less-valiant spirits in the
preexistence and thus unworthy of full integration into American
society.
I personally knew many "nice" Relief Society ladies who fought
tenaciously against the Equal Rights Amendment because they thought
it'd end up with unisex bathrooms. They honestly believed the
falsehoods they were spreading.
If you read accounts of the Nazi movement in Germany you find similar
stories of young men and women with deep commitment to the movement,
motivated out of patriotism and a deep yet honest belief that all (or
at least most) of Germany's woes were caused by Jews, and that Hitler
was a visionary for solving the "Jewish problem."
There can be little doubt about the sincerity of many people that
advocate immoral things. I suspect that the religious zealots that
burned witches actually thought they were dispensing mercy.
Of course all that has relatively little to do with my statement "that
the issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
Mormon apologists." After all, one must realize that most Mormons are
sheep, not "apologists." In case there's any confusion, though, allow
me to make clear that by "apologist" I mean those who work primarily
to defend Mormonism against all criticism. Examples include notorious
characters like Paul Dunn, Gordon Hinckley, and Dallin Oaks. Other
examples of apologists include those that work at FAIR and FARMS.
These folks are not your typical granny, but well-educated,
experienced, and *knowing* liars that deliberately obfuscate and
misrepresent facts because they believe it's more important to defend
Mormonism than to tell the truth.
> Further, when such supporters fully believe in what they represent,
> many become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own leaders
> lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly clear
> that lies were told.
It seems clear we have a disconnect with regard to personal
accountability.
If a person drinks into a stupor they become "incapable" of
controlling their car. But as a society we still hold them
accountable for wreaks and carnage they cause if they choose to drive.
Every person (I believe) has an ethical and moral responsibility to
ensure that what they say is true. Spreading another person's lies
isn't really an excuse.
If it's okay to tell lies because one is a deluded cult member, then
what's next? Murder? Why not? Numbers 31 describes people
committing genocide for a prophet they thought spoke for god. Is
genocide excusable simply because the people committing it thought god
wanted it done?
How about parents that kill their child by withholding medical
treatment because they think god will heal the kid? Is their sincere
delusion a valid excuse for child abuse?
Personally I don't think religious delusions are an excuse for
unethical behavior. And I consider lying to be unethical. Likewise I
consider child abuse and murder to be unethical, and it goes without
saying that I withhold no condemnation for those that commit either,
whether they do it out of sincere religious conviction or not.
I believe he is sincere as well. But I don't think his sincerity is a
valid excuse for perpetuating a falsehood.
You seem to think that just because he's sincere (though deluded) that
it's not unethical for him to perpetuate a falsehood. Don't you think
he has any ethical obligation to verify the statements that he
perpetuates? I do. I think his unethical behavior is rooted in the
way he spread falsehoods.
I think spreading shit can be as bad as shitting shit.
> he's a father of
> young children, a man of deep and abiding believe in God,
Why would belief in a god be a mitigating factor?
> a patriotic
> citizen admirably motivated to action,
Who decided he's patriotic? What did he do to demonstrate his
patriotism?
It seems a sad commentary in contemporary America that "patriotism"
means slapping a yellow ribbon on your SUV, and wearing a flag lapel
pin. If this guy *really* wanted to demonstrate his "patriotism" he
should have joined the army. Or, he could have fought tirelessly for
a war tax to support the war effort.
I'm guessing he did neither. In fact, I'm guessing he fought for tax
*cuts* during war time, and I'm guessing that he supported the Bush
administration lies that led to the war in Iraq -- both actions that I
consider distinctly *un* patriotic.
So let's dispense with the clap trap about how "patriotic" he is. It
talks more than hot air to be a patriot. My son, a dead Iraq veteran,
is a patriot, but Dr. Tam is *not.*
> and he earnestly believes that
> allowing gay people to get married is a significant threat to his
> family.
So? If he earnestly believed that killing gays was the only way to
protect his family would his delusion justify the murders?
Suppose that he earnestly believed that god wanted him to kill
abortion doctors. Would that earnest religious conviction justify his
actions in your mind?
Suppose he earnestly believed that the Jews were causing America's
downfall -- and he started advocated the genocide of all the Jews?
Would his religious piety make it all okay?
> And that thought invokes in me a measure of sympathy and
> respect
I don't understand why.
I have sympathy for gays who's lives were wrecked by bigots like Dr.
Tam. But I have no sympathy for Dr. Tam. He isn't the victim.
> -- deep though I may need to dig to find it, because it's a
> really, seriously, appallingly ludicrous point of view.
>
> With all that foundation laid, and in the spirit of friendly debate in
> the best and finest tradition of ARM (and ARMF since we're cross
> posting this one), I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue
> of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> apologists." Now, I don't know this "You" character, but when I think
> about Gene Fuller, Woody Brison, Charles Dowis, Diana and others, I
> would say that ethics and morality are just as important to them as
> they are to Duwayne and myself. But they have very different ethics
> and morality. I find many of their ethics repugnant, and much of
> their morality illogical, silly, damaging and dangerous. As far as I
> know, none of the apologists I've listed are politicians (or General
> Authorities), where lack of a moral compass is a requirement (I jest,
> I jest), so here, this one time in the public record I'll cut them
> some slack in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they can for once
> prove Duwayne wrong.
There's no objective measure of right or wrong.
But even though moral system cannot be proven superior to each other
on the basis of merit, one can categorize them as self consistent or
lacking self consistency. On that basis I find your forgiveness of
certain LDS actions improper because I doubt very much that you'd
extend the same forgiveness to Natzis for the crimes they committed,
even though they believe in god, had kids, were sincer, and
patriotic. Thus I find your approach to LDS ethics inconsistent. And
I've never known an inconsistent construct to be of much value.
>
> Stranger things have happened.
>
> -Xan
Yes. Very good post, by they way. Nice information added. I agree
with many of your points, though disagree with a lot of them too.
Duwayne Anderson
�R.L.Measures
<102dc8c9-efc9-4262...@s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:33=A0am, Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 9:24=A0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 2, 8:04=A0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability of sa=
> yng
> > > > anything important. <G>
> >
> > > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing Mormons,"
> > > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
> >
> > > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the evidence
> > > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" can do
> > > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important."
> >
> > > Here's the link to that story, again:
> >
> > >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
> >
> > > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is that the
> > > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
> > > Mormon apologists. =A0It doesn't seem to matter at all to "You" and
> > > Fuller that their church lied. =A0That doesn't seem to bother them at
> > > all. =A0Rather, it seems the most important thing for "You" and Fuller
> > > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if they
> > > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
> >
> > > DuwayneAnderson
> > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > > science"
> > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning for
> > posting something on-topic and 2) you Duwayne for continuing to fight
> > the good fight.
> >
> > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues to
> > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watershed
> > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> > continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
> > losing battle. =A0And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
> >
> > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too many
> > times to count. =A0I vividly remember my reaction to some of those
> > threads (John Taylor and polygamy anyone?) and certainly felt much
> > anger at the time. I expressed it in the form of sarcasm, parody,
> > satire ... and often, when humor couldn't dull my pain, pure and naked
> > derision. =A0If I have any regrets about those comments, it is that they
> > should have more often been directed at leaders of the LDS Church,
> > which is after all, the main source of perpetuating this culture of
> > deception, prevarication, misdirection, obfuscation and, let's call
> > this pig what it is: lying.
> >
> > Someone -- and I find it amusing that there is some debate as to whom
> > -- once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." =A0One thing
> > I appreciated when I read through the proceedings of Perry v.
> > Schwarzenegger was how much of the plaintiffs' case was built on
> > them. =A0And not just the sheer volume of numeric data they submitted
> > into evidence, but the extent to which their expert witnesses
> > explained the methodology used to obtain them, and the conclusions
> > that could be determined from them.
> >
> > So powerful were these data that even the defendants' two expert
> > witnesses could not and did not convincingly refute the major points
> > of the plaintiffs' case. =A0Note even further that two (I think that's
> > right) of the defendants' witnesses were dropped from the case after
> > their depositions because they had the intellectual and moral
> > integrity to review a set of numbers and draw the same conclusion that
> > any honest social scientist worth their salt would: the Yes on 8
> > advanced their campaign on baseless falsehoods.
> >
> > Note that I didn't say lies. =A0So, here's my main thesis and the real
> > reason for my post. =A0Since I've been away from ARM, and especially
> > recently as I've been watching this issue unfold, I've come to believe
> > that the grassroots, in-the-trenches supporters of any creed, cause,
> > issue or campaign fervently believe that they are spreading truth.
> > Further, when such supporters fully believe in what they represent,
> > many become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own leaders
> > lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly clear
> > that lies were told.
> >
> > This dynamic can go pretty far up the hierarchy of an organization, be
> > it a church, cause, or campaign organization. =A0I have an anecdotal
> > piece of evidence to offer in support. =A0One of the witness testimonies
> > in Perry v. Schwarzenegger came from a witness named Dr. Hak-Shing
> > William Tam. =A0By way of background, Dr. Tam was a Yes on Prop. 8
> > supporter, and secretary of one of the organizations in the Yes on 8
> > coalition. =A0Not a major leader in the campaign, but a mid-level
> > supporter with extensive contacts in various California Asian
> > Christian organizations. =A0According to his testimony, his
> > organization's efforts accounted for about 20,000 of the signatures
> > that put Prop. 8 on the ballot. =A0Even though he was a Prop. 8
> > supporter, he was called to the stand as witness by the plaintiffs,
> > something the defendants' counsel desperately sought to block. =A0Here's
> > an excerpt:
> >
> > =A0[Boies] You believe that after Netherlands legalized same-sex
> > =A0marriage, the Netherlands went on after that to legalize incest
> > =A0and polygamy?
> > =A0[Tam] It says here "to date." It does not say something caused
> > =A0the other to happen. However, it shows the moral decay of a
> > =A0liberal country in their views of sex.
> > =A0[Boies] You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was
> > =A0legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy.
> > =A0Whether that was causal or not, you're saying that's
> > =A0what happened after same sex was legalized, correct, same-sex
> > =A0marriage?
> > =A0[Tam] Yeah, look at the date. It's -- polygamy happens
> > =A0afterwards.
> > =A0[Boies] Who told you that, sir? Where did you get that idea?
> > =A0[Tam] It's in the internet.
> > =A0[Boies] In the internet?
> > =A0[Tam] Yeah.
> > =A0[Boies] Somewhere out in the internet it says that the Netherlands
> > =A0legalized incest and polygamy in 2005?
> > =A0[Tam] Frankly, I did not write this, all right? Polygamy was
> > =A0legalized in 2005. Another person in the organization found it
> > =A0and he showed me that.
> >
>
> ---
>
> > Now, it could be that Dr. Tam is a rotten lying bastard. =A0Certainly,
> > things come out of his mouth that I consider filth. =A0Or in this
> > specific case, absurd to the point of hilarity. =A0But this witness is
> > one whose testimony I read every single word of because I simply could
> > not tear myself away from it, at the very least for the sheer
> > entertainment value. =A0And even though I loathe his visceral contempt
> > of liberal countries and their attendant moral decay, having read his
> > entire testimony I believe the man is sincere -- he's a father of
> > young children, a man of deep and abiding believe in God, a patriotic
> > citizen admirably motivated to action, and he earnestly believes that
> > allowing gay people to get married is a significant threat to his
> > family. =A0And that thought invokes in me a measure of sympathy and
> > respect -- deep though I may need to dig to find it, because it's a
> > really, seriously, appallingly ludicrous point of view.
> >
> > With all that foundation laid, and in the spirit of friendly debate in
> > the best and finest tradition of ARM (and ARMF since we're cross
> > posting this one), I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue
> > of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> > apologists." =A0Now, I don't know this "You" character, but when I think
> > about Gene Fuller, Woody Brison, Charles Dowis, Diana and others, I
> > would say that ethics and morality are just as important to them as
> > they are to Duwayne and myself. =A0But they have very different ethics
> > and morality. =A0I find many of their ethics repugnant, and much of
> > their morality illogical, silly, damaging and dangerous. =A0As far as I
> > know, none of the apologists I've listed are politicians (or General
> > Authorities), where lack of a moral compass is a requirement (I jest,
> > I jest), so here, this one time in the public record I'll cut them
> > some slack in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they can for once
> > prove Duwayne wrong.
> >
> > Stranger things have happened.
> >
> > -Xan
>
> I see your point, Xan.
>
> And, furthering your argument, I think you've just proven that the
> Nazis were moral, ethical and patriotic people. After all, the men
> who served in the Third Reich were fathers of young children, highly
> patriotic, and doing what they thought was the morally and ethically
> right thing to do. It's just that they had a *different* morality and
> a *different* ethics -- where killing women and children was okay, as
> long as they were Jews. ..
** The SS managed to kill 98% of the Gypsies and 55% of the Jews in Europe.
Xan Du
wrote:
I see a very big difference between a low-echelon LDS on the stump for
a political campaign, and the LDS leadership that organized the
campaign, directed church funds to it, etc. I think sincerity is part
of it, but perhaps intent and knowledge are maybe a better way to look
at it. I think we're on the same page here.
> > Further, when such supporters fully believe in what they represent,
> > many become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own leaders
> > lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly clear
> > that lies were told.
>
> It seems clear we have a disconnect with regard to personal
> accountability.
>
> If a person drinks into a stupor they become "incapable" of
> controlling their car. But as a society we still hold them
> accountable for wreaks and carnage they cause if they choose to drive.
>
> Every person (I believe) has an ethical and moral responsibility to
> ensure that what they say is true. Spreading another person's lies
> isn't really an excuse.
>
> If it's okay to tell lies because one is a deluded cult member, then
> what's next? Murder? Why not? Numbers 31 describes people
> committing genocide for a prophet they thought spoke for god. Is
> genocide excusable simply because the people committing it thought god
> wanted it done?
I see your Numbers 31 with my personal favorite: Judges 21. Men,
married women and male children all killed so the Benjamites could
kinap and rape the female children of a neighboring tribe all so their
own sons could have wives.
And, more topically, I'll raise you Leviticus 21, particularly the
bits about burning homosexuals because, well, they're gay and they
need to burn, amirite? I think it's bullshit too, ok?
Let me further go on record that I absolutely condemn the Third Reich.
So far we're in agreement, then maybe we diverge, maybe not. I'll try
to clean up my argument further down.
> How about parents that kill their child by withholding medical
> treatment because they think god will heal the kid? Is their sincere
> delusion a valid excuse for child abuse?
I know there's legal precedent on such cases, but I don't know if it
ever made it to the Federal level or not. Personally, I'd want the
law to protect the child, but it's a gnarly issue.
So, I'll counter with this: one of the stated concerns of the Yes on 8
campaign was that legalizing same-sex marriage would open the door to
adoption of children by gay couples, and that this is a Bad Thing.
One immediate problem with that argument is that Califorinia laws
already protect the right of any couple to adopt children regardless
of whether it's a heretosexual marriage, or same sex civil union, so
long as that couple meets all of the other adoption requirements. In
other words, Prop. 8 wouldn't have had an effect either way in
California. Of course, this is more than just about California, it
was really setting the stage for what is now a Federal case.
Protecting kids from "immoral" gay people was a common theme in the
Yes on 8 campaign. The motiviation is to obviously protect their own
children from influences of Evil, even if that means imposing their
own religious beliefs on everyone's children to get it. As such, it
was given a lot of attention in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
I'm gonna leave it there for now and move on.
> Personally I don't think religious delusions are an excuse for
> unethical behavior. And I consider lying to be unethical. Likewise I
> consider child abuse and murder to be unethical, and it goes without
> saying that I withhold no condemnation for those that commit either,
> whether they do it out of sincere religious conviction or not.
I think it's very important that the Bill of Rights protects the right
hold religious beliefs and be able to freely practice them. And if we
substitue "delusion" for "belief" we get that the First Amendment
supports the right to be deluded. I think that's very important.
See, it's fine for someone to be deluded as they want to be, so long
as I am not directly and significantly harmed by their delusion. With
that qualification, I'm with you.
I would have loved to have been in the room when Boies said,
"Somewhere out in the internet it says that the Netherlands legalized
incest and polygamy in 2005?" It's really just priceless, and that's
why I quoted it. The whole point of the exchange was that Boies was
trying to establish that the No on 8 leadership didn't do a very good
job of presenting accurate facts to the voting public over the
campaign. I think we'll see this quote in the plaintiffs' closing
arguments next month, so getting that testimony on record -- again
over strenuous objection by the defendant-intervenors' lawyers for
obvious reasion -- was a real coup for the plaintiffs' case. I'm
quite happy about it, it was a big win, and not their only one.
Do I think that Tam had an ethical obligation to verify the
information he disseminated during the Prop. 8 campaign? Of course I
do ... I think that anyone trying to influence the outcome of an
election or a political process does. I'm not trying to excuse him
from his obligations, I'm trying to better understand the motivations
behind why he failed that obligation in this case. I'm entirely
prepared to accept that this particular example was a deliberate lie
on his part, but thinking that polygamy was legalized in Holland in
2005 is such an outrageously implausible assertion to make that I
think there's a better story.
> > he's a father of
> > young children, a man of deep and abiding believe in God,
>
> Why would belief in a god be a mitigating factor?
It isn't. I'm trying to get in his head here, and simply stating my
impression of who I think he is. I'll get to why below.
> > a patriotic
> > citizen admirably motivated to action,
>
> Who decided he's patriotic? What did he do to demonstrate his
> patriotism?
Again, just an impression. I consider political action one element of
patriotism. An inherently selfish form of it, but an element. That
is all.
> It seems a sad commentary in contemporary America that "patriotism"
> means slapping a yellow ribbon on your SUV, and wearing a flag lapel
> pin. If this guy *really* wanted to demonstrate his "patriotism" he
> should have joined the army. Or, he could have fought tirelessly for
> a war tax to support the war effort.
>
> I'm guessing he did neither. In fact, I'm guessing he fought for tax
> *cuts* during war time, and I'm guessing that he supported the Bush
> administration lies that led to the war in Iraq -- both actions that I
> consider distinctly *un* patriotic.
>
> So let's dispense with the clap trap about how "patriotic" he is. It
> talks more than hot air to be a patriot. My son, a dead Iraq veteran,
> is a patriot, but Dr. Tam is *not.*
Duwayne, I did not know about this, I'm reeling a bit. On a personal
note, my sincerest condolences. I don't have the words ...
> > and he earnestly believes that
> > allowing gay people to get married is a significant threat to his
> > family.
>
> So? If he earnestly believed that killing gays was the only way to
> protect his family would his delusion justify the murders?
>
> Suppose that he earnestly believed that god wanted him to kill
> abortion doctors. Would that earnest religious conviction justify his
> actions in your mind?
>
> Suppose he earnestly believed that the Jews were causing America's
> downfall -- and he started advocated the genocide of all the Jews?
> Would his religious piety make it all okay?
Obviously I don't think he'd be justified to do any of that. And I
also don't believe his fears about the threat of gays to his children
has any factual foundation, so I don't think removing gay's rights to
get married has any justification. Again, I'm just trying to get an
impression of who he is. I'll get to why below.
> > And that thought invokes in me a measure of sympathy and
> > respect
>
> I don't understand why.
I'll try to answer that now. When I first set out to write my
original note, one of the themes I wanted to address -- if I could do
it succinctly and with brevity -- is the state of the political
process in our country right now, and specifically political
discourse. Because I didn't get interested in politics until later
than most people seem to, I really only have about 10 years' direct
experience in how politics in this country really works and I still
feel like I have some catching up to do. Now, my father was a
research scientist before switching careers, so I grew up being aware
of things like proper sampling methods, control groups and
confirmation bias long before I actually studied science in college.
I try to apply scientific research methods when attempting to form
political opinions. One way I do that is to read a lot of things I'm
pretty sure I won't agree with. It's hard, but I do it when I can.
The other thing I try to do is put myself in the "other sides'" shoes.
One big reason I do all that is because a common opinion these days is
that the political process in this country is more polarized than it's
ever been in its history. A pretty bold claim ... things during the
time of Jefferson and Hamilton don't exactly strike me as halcyon.
Same for Lincoln's presidency. And I have it on good authority that
the golden days of McCarthyism weren't so golden either.
But I also note this: leaving the Great Depression and the mid-70's to
mid-80's out of the analysis, the past 10 years of financial history
in this country has been fairly treacherous at best, and lately
downright dismal. I'm worried about it, and one thing I pay a lot of
attention to is the nature of political discourse -- what people
disagree about, and how they find or don't find reslolution to those
disagreements. I'm sure the problems of our nation extend far beyond
how we talk to each other, but this is one aspect of our country's
issues that I have some facility in understanding. I'm just very
interested in it.
So I have this tendency to be a discourse critic. I like to argue and
debate for the sake of doing it. I like to play Devil's Advocate.
All that stuff helps me better see the whole issue than if I simply
take my pre-conceived notions into my study of an issue. In a forum
like ARM, I simply like to bring something other than pure polemic to
the table.
I have sympathy for Dr. Tam becaused I allowed myself to accept
portions of his testimony at face value to see if I could find any
validity in his point of view. I did find some validity, but overall
I don't agree with most of his approach, and I definitely don't agree
with the campaign he supported. But within the larger context of this
whole issue of same-sex marriage and the LDS Church's involvement in
the campaign, I found him interesting piece of the whole. It was a
good hook to get me into this conversation, a device I used to build a
story around the things I've been thinking about and wanted to say on
a lot of different issues.
All the while that I was expressing this sympathy, I really tried to
be abundantly clear that I ultimately didn't agree with his position.
I maybe should have done better?
> I have sympathy for gays who's lives were wrecked by bigots like Dr.
> Tam. But I have no sympathy for Dr. Tam. He isn't the victim.
In my mind that's a given, but I might have made that a little more
explicit in my original comments.
Also, as a comment on discourse, I'll say this: within the larger
context of national politics in the US, I'm just sick and tired of the
constant name calling and demonization. Democrats and Republicans
disagree with each other for the sake of disagreement. That's very
different from debate for the sake of debate that I'm doing here. I
say this: let's install a mud wrassling ring on the front lawn of
Capitol Hill, fire the House and Senate, replace them with a bunch of
Reality TV actors, and let them sling real mud at each other. It will
be about as useful, and a hell of a lot more entertaining.
Again, I feel like I lack perspective relative to my elders and my
peers, coming late as I have into paying real attention to the
political process. I know politics is not a fun process, and that
scoring political points on opponents is a necessary part of the game,
but I have a sense that it really has gotten seriously dysfunctional
to the point of collapse and total irrelevance.
> > -- deep though I may need to dig to find it, because it's a
> > really, seriously, appallingly ludicrous point of view.
>
> > With all that foundation laid, and in the spirit of friendly debate in
> > the best and finest tradition of ARM (and ARMF since we're cross
> > posting this one), I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue
> > of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> > apologists." Now, I don't know this "You" character, but when I think
> > about Gene Fuller, Woody Brison, Charles Dowis, Diana and others, I
> > would say that ethics and morality are just as important to them as
> > they are to Duwayne and myself. But they have very different ethics
> > and morality. I find many of their ethics repugnant, and much of
> > their morality illogical, silly, damaging and dangerous. As far as I
> > know, none of the apologists I've listed are politicians (or General
> > Authorities), where lack of a moral compass is a requirement (I jest,
> > I jest), so here, this one time in the public record I'll cut them
> > some slack in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they can for once
> > prove Duwayne wrong.
>
> There's no objective measure of right or wrong.
Exactly. But you and I both have strong senses of what's right and
what's wrong, our own personal defintions that we both feel strongly
about. This is our moral code, and the extent to which we live by
that code is what defines how ethical we are.
And back to the main argument in this thread: my main objection to
Mormonism with respect to morality is that they're absolutists -- they
don't accept like you and I do that there's no objective measure of
right or wrong. So, as an institution, they don't have a vocabulary
for discusing moral issues in a secular environment. They have no
context for evaluating right or wrong in any kind of usefully abstract
way, and especially not in a way that accommodates other beliefs or
needs in the form of compromise and mutual benefit. Black and white.
My way or the highway. Are you catching my drift?
> But even though moral system cannot be proven superior to each other
> on the basis of merit, one can categorize them as self consistent or
> lacking self consistency. On that basis I find your forgiveness of
> certain LDS actions improper because I doubt very much that you'd
> extend the same forgiveness to Natzis for the crimes they committed,
> even though they believe in god, had kids, were sincer, and
> patriotic. Thus I find your approach to LDS ethics inconsistent. And
> I've never known an inconsistent construct to be of much value.
Harumph. I'm really not attempting to forgive or excuse any improper
LDS actions here. In fact, I think I deliverd a fairly scathing
critique over the course of my entire original post. In the last
paragraph of the original post, I did throw them a deliberate bone
because I wanted them to weigh in on your assesment that ethics and
morality were unimportant to them.
I think one reason you see inconsistency in my approach to LDS ethics
is that I'm still in the process of unlearning a lot of things
Mormonism taught me, and then filling in those voids my my own set of
rules. So again, I do deliberatly toss stuff out, even if I know it's
still half-baked, to get a reaction. I agree that inconsistent
constructs are not useful, very very much I agree. You're seeing a
bit of my own personal process to try to ferret those out.
There's more resarch I want to do on the LDS Church's involvement in
Prop. 8. I've read a lot of the actual proceedings of Perry v.
Schwarzenegger since those are available online in their entirety.
But there are a number of exhibits entered into evidence that didn't
get read into the transcript that sound very interesting ... emails,
pamphlets, etc. I have to wait for the Federal Court to mail me a
user name and password before I can pull those documents down. It
should be here before the end of the week.
> > Stranger things have happened.
>
> > -Xan
>
> Yes. Very good post, by they way. Nice information added. I agree
> with many of your points, though disagree with a lot of them too.
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science"
> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Thanks. I hope to add a little more info. And I've enjoyed your
responses back.
-Xan
Xan Du
> In article
> <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
In the Wild Wild West, these were talents to be admired.
It's really just you and Duwayne holding the fort these days isn't
it.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<b5e0331d-30f7-40f8...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Xan Du
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:08=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability of =
> sayn=3D
> > > g
> > > > > anything important. <G>
> >
> > > > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing Mormons,"
> > > > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
> >
> > > > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the evidence
> > > > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" can do
> > > > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important."
> >
> > > > Here's the link to that story, again:
> >
> > > >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effor=
> t/
> >
> > > > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is that the
> > > > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
> > > > Mormon apologists. =3DA0It doesn't seem to matter at all to "You" and
> > > > Fuller that their church lied. =3DA0That doesn't seem to bother them =
> at
> > > > all. =3DA0Rather, it seems the most important thing for "You" and Ful=
> ler
> > > > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if they
> > > > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
> >
> > > > DuwayneAnderson
> > > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > > > science"
> > > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > > I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning for
> > > posting something on-topic and 2) you Duwayne for continuing to fight
> > > the good fight.
> >
> > > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues to
> > > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watershed
> > > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> > > continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
> > > losing battle. =A0And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
> >
> > > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too many
> > > times to count.
> >
> > =95 =A0"... We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, the
> > cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character that
> > you can mention."
> > --- =A0 Brigham Young
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> In the Wild Wild West, these were talents to be admired.
>
> It's really just you and Duwayne holding the fort these days isn't
> it.
>
> -Xan
** It's true that there are few who still do. However, John Manning
contributes from time to time. Since there is no possible way to defend a
prophet of God who got caught boning his wife's 16-yr old maid, perhaps
the one true church has come to its senses and is presently encouraging
TBMs to stop posting here?
Duwaynea Anderson
Xan, before you read this post I'd like you to internalize the fact
that I really enjoy conversing with you, and hold you in high esteem.
Keep that in mind as you read my comments, as I tend to be blunt and
I'm not worth a damn when it comes to finesse. I tend to come across
as a cranky old bastard, which I may or may not be -- but don't let
that lead you to thinking I don't have the utmost respect for your
personally.
<snip>
> I see a very big difference between a low-echelon LDS on the stump for
> a political campaign, and the LDS leadership that organized the
> campaign, directed church funds to it, etc.
Oh! I do to! One is a low-echelon member stumping for a political
campaign and the other is a leader in the church.
Obviously.
> I think sincerity is part
> of it, but perhaps intent and knowledge are maybe a better way to look
> at it. I think we're on the same page here.
I think a person can be sincere and do bad things. As I pointed out,
many members of the Natzi party were sincere. They thought they were
patriots. They really did think that the Jews presented a threat to
Germany.
But that doesn't justify their support of the Natzi party, or the
"ultimate solution."
I marvel at the way religion has become the new justification. People
seem to think that "faith" can make "stupid" into something else. We
see religious folk wallowing in their "faith" as they use it to excuse
everything from racism to intellectual dishonesty to lying, to praying
for the death of a president, to belief in stupid, stupid, stupid
things.
But just because a person has "faith" in something doesn't mean it's
not "stupid," and just because a person has "faith" in a thing doesn't
mean it's not evil.
And (just pressing home the point) just because everyday Mormons
believed in the lies their superiors were telling them doesn't mean
they really honor and respect the truth.
So while I would *never* minimize the culpability of the evil men that
run/operate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'm
unwilling to let the common members off the hook for spreading the
lies those evil men told -- even *if* the stupid members were doing it
out of religious sincerity.
BTW -- I hold myself in condemnation on this matter. I was a an
active member of the LDS cult for about 35 years and *I* spread that
LDS shit as a missionary. I have tried to repent of those sins. I
continue in the effort.
<snip>
> > If it's okay to tell lies because one is a deluded cult member, then
> > what's next? Murder? Why not? Numbers 31 describes people
> > committing genocide for a prophet they thought spoke for god. Is
> > genocide excusable simply because the people committing it thought god
> > wanted it done?
>
> I see your Numbers 31 with my personal favorite: Judges 21. Men,
> married women and male children all killed so the Benjamites could
> kinap and rape the female children of a neighboring tribe all so their
> own sons could have wives.
>
> And, more topically, I'll raise you Leviticus 21, particularly the
> bits about burning homosexuals because, well, they're gay and they
> need to burn, amirite? I think it's bullshit too, ok?
Okay. But I wonder if you missed my point. If (as you seem to be
arguing) its okay to spread lies if one does it with religious
conviction and sincerity, then where does that line of reasoning end?
If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
genocide?
If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
incest?
If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
praying for the president to be murdered?
> Let me further go on record that I absolutely condemn the Third Reich.
Good. So do I. And it doesn't matter a damn to me that some of them
were patriots, fathers of young children, or devoutly religious.
> So far we're in agreement, then maybe we diverge, maybe not. I'll try
> to clean up my argument further down.
>
> > How about parents that kill their child by withholding medical
> > treatment because they think god will heal the kid? Is their sincere
> > delusion a valid excuse for child abuse?
>
> I know there's legal precedent on such cases,
In some cases there is. And such protection is an abomination -- it's
absolutely absurd.
My point, though, is that you seem to side with the notion that
religious piety is some sort of justification for stupid or evil
things. That being the case, I'd expect you to deal softly with
parents that kill their kids our of religious piety/stupidity.
I wouldn't.
> but I don't know if it
> ever made it to the Federal level or not. Personally, I'd want the
> law to protect the child, but it's a gnarly issue.
Why is it "gnarly?" Why should delusions be a defense for
manslaughter?
> So, I'll counter with this: one of the stated concerns of the Yes on 8
> campaign was that legalizing same-sex marriage would open the door to
> adoption of children by gay couples, and that this is a Bad Thing.
Who says it's a bad thing? The same people that said interracial
marriages are a "bad thing?"
But we digress. The issue here is the way the church *lied.* If the
only thing the church and its members did was argue the *merits* of
the issue, using data, reason, and logic, there would be no uproar.
Nobody is saying that Mormons aren't entitled to their opinion. The
uproar is over the way the LDS Church leaders and members *lied.*
Lying is bad. But you seem to be giving the members (at least) a pass
on lying because the poor stupid dolts were only passing on lies their
evil leaders told them, and they were doing it out of religious piety
and conviction.
> One immediate problem with that argument is that Califorinia laws
> already protect the right of any couple to adopt children regardless
> of whether it's a heretosexual marriage, or same sex civil union, so
> long as that couple meets all of the other adoption requirements. In
> other words, Prop. 8 wouldn't have had an effect either way in
> California. Of course, this is more than just about California, it
> was really setting the stage for what is now a Federal case.
>
> Protecting kids from "immoral" gay people was a common theme in the
> Yes on 8 campaign. The motiviation is to obviously protect their own
> children from influences of Evil, even if that means imposing their
> own religious beliefs on everyone's children to get it. As such, it
> was given a lot of attention in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
>
> I'm gonna leave it there for now and move on.
As I said, Mormons are as entitled to discuss the merits of the case
as anyone else. I don't believe they are entitled to lie without
being called liars.
If Mormons believe that gay parents are bad for kids, let them present
their case. Let them do it *honestly* and without *lying.* Let them
represent the scientific evidence *honestly.*
The whole issue here is Mormon lying, and whether or not that
distinctly unethical behavior is somehow justifiable or less unethical
simply because these cult members were acting out of a sense of
religious "faith."
You seem to think "faith" is an excuse for being stupid and being
unethical.
I don't.
> > Personally I don't think religious delusions are an excuse for
> > unethical behavior. And I consider lying to be unethical. Likewise I
> > consider child abuse and murder to be unethical, and it goes without
> > saying that I withhold no condemnation for those that commit either,
> > whether they do it out of sincere religious conviction or not.
>
> I think it's very important that the Bill of Rights protects the right
> hold religious beliefs and be able to freely practice them.
The Bill of Rights protects against discrimination on the basis of
religious belief. It does not guarantee the right to *practice*
whatever religious rites a person might have.
A person may have a religious "faith" that involves human sacrifice.
But they don't have the right to engage in human sacrifice.
A person may have a religious "faith" that involves plural marriage.
But they don't have the right to engage in plural marriage.
A person may have a religious "faith" that involves smoking pot. But
they don't have the right to smoke pot.
And more to the point, the Bill of Rights does not give the LDS Church
the right to violate political laws. It certainly doesn't give them
the right to lie without being called liars.
Let's be clear here. *Nobody* is persecuting the Mormons. Mormons
are not the victims. *Nobody* is suggesting the abolition or
limitation of the Bill of Rights. It's dishonest for Mormons to
twisted the situation (as Dallin Oaks did) into an argument that
Mormons are under attack.
> And if we
> substitue "delusion" for "belief" we get that the First Amendment
> supports the right to be deluded.
I agree. You have the right to be deluded. Enjoy it. Revel in it.
But a person doesn't have the right to kill other people because of
their delusion.
A person doesn't have the right to commit child abuse because of their
delusion.
And delusion is no moral excuse for lying.
> I think that's very important.
> See, it's fine for someone to be deluded as they want to be, so long
> as I am not directly and significantly harmed by their delusion. With
> that qualification, I'm with you.
Good. I'm glad we agree.
And the present point is that people were harmed by Mormon delusion.
The Mormons hurt thousands of people. The Mormons took apart their
families, limited their legal rights.
If society did to the *Mormons* what the Mormons have done to Gays,
the Mormons would be in an absolute uproar.
And they would be especially incensed if the whole process was based
on institutionalized lying.
So, again, it seems that the point on which we disagree is over the
latitude you seem willing to give the Mormons for doing evil things
out of religious conviction.
<snip>
> Do I think that Tam had an ethical obligation to verify the
> information he disseminated during the Prop. 8 campaign? Of course I
> do ... I think that anyone trying to influence the outcome of an
> election or a political process does. I'm not trying to excuse him
> from his obligations, I'm trying to better understand the motivations
> behind why he failed that obligation in this case.
I'm touched. Truly. Your compassion for Tam brings tears to my eyes.
(I'm being sarcastic, in case you hadn't noticed)
> I'm entirely
> prepared to accept that this particular example was a deliberate lie
> on his part, but thinking that polygamy was legalized in Holland in
> 2005 is such an outrageously implausible assertion to make that I
> think there's a better story.
>
> > > he's a father of
> > > young children, a man of deep and abiding believe in God,
>
> > Why would belief in a god be a mitigating factor?
>
> It isn't.
Good. Then don't bring it up.
> I'm trying to get in his head here, and simply stating my
> impression of who I think he is. I'll get to why below.
>
> > > a patriotic
> > > citizen admirably motivated to action,
>
> > Who decided he's patriotic? What did he do to demonstrate his
> > patriotism?
>
> Again, just an impression.
Based on what?
> I consider political action one element of
> patriotism.
Political action based on *lies?" I really hope you are kidding,
here.
Personally, I think a person that sets out to destroy equal protection
under the law -- a key aspect of our constitution -- to be more of a
traitor than a patriot.
> An inherently selfish form of it, but an element. That
> is all.
"Patriotism" and "selfish" never share the same sentence. Patriotism
is, by definition, an *un* selfish act. For example, the bastards
that made billions off war profiteering are not patriots.
My point is that the whacked-out radical right (nicely defined by the
LDS cult) has bastardized the phrase "patriot" to the point that their
"patriots" are people we might have called traitors in days past.
At any rate, there's just no justifiable reason to call Tam a
patriot. He's nothing of the sort.
<snip>
> > Suppose he earnestly believed that the Jews were causing America's
> > downfall -- and he started advocated the genocide of all the Jews?
> > Would his religious piety make it all okay?
>
> Obviously I don't think he'd be justified to do any of that. And I
> also don't believe his fears about the threat of gays to his children
> has any factual foundation, so I don't think removing gay's rights to
> get married has any justification. Again, I'm just trying to get an
> impression of who he is. I'll get to why below.
I can hardly wait.
> > > And that thought invokes in me a measure of sympathy and
> > > respect
>
> > I don't understand why.
>
> I'll try to answer that now. When I first set out to write my
> original note, one of the themes I wanted to address -- if I could do
> it succinctly and with brevity -- is the state of the political
> process in our country right now, and specifically political
> discourse. Because I didn't get interested in politics until later
> than most people seem to, I really only have about 10 years' direct
> experience in how politics in this country really works and I still
> feel like I have some catching up to do. Now, my father was a
> research scientist before switching careers, so I grew up being aware
> of things like proper sampling methods, control groups and
> confirmation bias long before I actually studied science in college.
You owe your dad a debt of gratitude.
-------
> I have sympathy for Dr. Tam becaused I allowed myself to accept
> portions of his testimony at face value to see if I could find any
> validity in his point of view. I did find some validity, but overall
> I don't agree with most of his approach, and I definitely don't agree
> with the campaign he supported. But within the larger context of this
> whole issue of same-sex marriage and the LDS Church's involvement in
> the campaign, I found him interesting piece of the whole. It was a
> good hook to get me into this conversation, a device I used to build a
> story around the things I've been thinking about and wanted to say on
> a lot of different issues.
>
> All the while that I was expressing this sympathy, I really tried to
> be abundantly clear that I ultimately didn't agree with his position.
> I maybe should have done better?
Again. I'm touched by your "sympathy" for Tam.
(I'm being sarcastic, in case you hadn't noticed.)
Look, we simply have different sympathies. I have friends that are
Gay. I know what the lies told by the LDS Church and men like Tam did
to them. I have sympathy for the people who's lives were destroyed by
the lies and bigotry of the LDS Church and members like Tam.
Mormonism isn't the victim here. Neither is Tam.
I'm sure it would be interesting to get "inside the heads" of
murderers, rapists, and habitual thieves. I'd really like to get
inside Dallin H. Oak's head. Or Thomas S. Monson, for that matter.
And who wouldn't like to know what made Gordon B. Hinckley tick? But
while the inside workings of these dishonest men is interesting, it's
really beside the point when discussing the immoral and unethical
behavior of the LDS Church with regard to the way the church and its
members lied during the Prop 8 campaign.
> > I have sympathy for gays who's lives were wrecked by bigots like Dr.
> > Tam. But I have no sympathy for Dr. Tam. He isn't the victim.
>
> In my mind that's a given, but I might have made that a little more
> explicit in my original comments.
>
> Also, as a comment on discourse, I'll say this: within the larger
> context of national politics in the US, I'm just sick and tired of the
> constant name calling and demonization. Democrats and Republicans
> disagree with each other for the sake of disagreement. That's very
> different from debate for the sake of debate that I'm doing here. I
> say this: let's install a mud wrassling ring on the front lawn of
> Capitol Hill, fire the House and Senate, replace them with a bunch of
> Reality TV actors, and let them sling real mud at each other. It will
> be about as useful, and a hell of a lot more entertaining.
>
> Again, I feel like I lack perspective relative to my elders and my
> peers, coming late as I have into paying real attention to the
> political process. I know politics is not a fun process, and that
> scoring political points on opponents is a necessary part of the game,
> but I have a sense that it really has gotten seriously dysfunctional
> to the point of collapse and total irrelevance.
>
> > > -- deep though I may need to dig to find it, because it's a
> > > really, seriously, appallingly ludicrous point of view.
>
> > > With all that foundation laid, and in the spirit of friendly debate in
> > > the best and finest tradition of ARM (and ARMF since we're cross
> > > posting this one), I disagree withDuwayne'sstatement "that the issue
> > > of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> > > apologists." Now, I don't know this "You" character, but when I think
> > > about Gene Fuller, Woody Brison, Charles Dowis, Diana and others, I
> > > would say that ethics and morality are just as important to them as
> > > they are toDuwayneand myself. But they have very different ethics
> > > and morality. I find many of their ethics repugnant, and much of
> > > their morality illogical, silly, damaging and dangerous. As far as I
> > > know, none of the apologists I've listed are politicians (or General
> > > Authorities), where lack of a moral compass is a requirement (I jest,
> > > I jest), so here, this one time in the public record I'll cut them
> > > some slack in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they can for once
> > > proveDuwaynewrong.
>
---
> > There's no objective measure of right or wrong.
>
> Exactly. But you and I both have strong senses of what's right and
> what's wrong, our own personal defintions that we both feel strongly
> about. This is our moral code, and the extent to which we live by
> that code is what defines how ethical we are.
Back to the subject at hand -- I think lying is wrong. Most people
would agree; lying violates a commonly shared sense of morality.
And there is little doubt that Mormons lied often and repeatedly
during the Prop 8 campaign. I think it was absolutely wrong for them
to do that. They need to repent (though they never will). And
whether or not they told their lies out of a sense of faith or
religious piety is completely irrelevant. It doesn't excuse or
justify the evil they did.
> And back to the main argument in this thread: my main objection to
> Mormonism with respect to morality is that they're absolutists -- they
> don't accept like you and I do that there's no objective measure of
> right or wrong. So, as an institution, they don't have a vocabulary
> for discusing moral issues in a secular environment. They have no
> context for evaluating right or wrong in any kind of usefully abstract
> way, and especially not in a way that accommodates other beliefs or
> needs in the form of compromise and mutual benefit. Black and white.
> My way or the highway. Are you catching my drift?
Yeah.
>
> > But even though moral system cannot be proven superior to each other
> > on the basis of merit, one can categorize them as self consistent or
> > lacking self consistency. On that basis I find your forgiveness of
> > certain LDS actions improper because I doubt very much that you'd
> > extend the same forgiveness to Natzis for the crimes they committed,
> > even though they believe in god, had kids, were sincer, and
> > patriotic. Thus I find your approach to LDS ethics inconsistent. And
> > I've never known an inconsistent construct to be of much value.
>
---
> Harumph. I'm really not attempting to forgive or excuse any improper
> LDS actions here.
Well, then. I think we are in agreement.
> In fact, I think I deliverd a fairly scathing
> critique over the course of my entire original post.
Which is why I liked so much of it.
> In the last
> paragraph of the original post, I did throw them a deliberate bone
> because I wanted them to weigh in on your assesment that ethics and
> morality were unimportant to them.
>
> I think one reason you see inconsistency in my approach to LDS ethics
> is that I'm still in the process of unlearning a lot of things
> Mormonism taught me, and then filling in those voids my my own set of
> rules. So again, I do deliberatly toss stuff out, even if I know it's
> still half-baked, to get a reaction.
Ahhhhh.
So, did I give you a "reaction?"
> I agree that inconsistent
> constructs are not useful, very very much I agree. You're seeing a
> bit of my own personal process to try to ferret those out.
>
> There's more resarch I want to do on the LDS Church's involvement in
> Prop. 8. I've read a lot of the actual proceedings of Perry v.
> Schwarzenegger since those are available online in their entirety.
> But there are a number of exhibits entered into evidence that didn't
> get read into the transcript that sound very interesting ... emails,
> pamphlets, etc. I have to wait for the Federal Court to mail me a
> user name and password before I can pull those documents down. It
> should be here before the end of the week.
>
> > > Stranger things have happened.
>
> > > -Xan
>
> > Yes. Very good post, by they way. Nice information added. I agree
> > with many of your points, though disagree with a lot of them too.
>
> >DuwayneAnderson
> > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > science"
> > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
>
> Thanks. I hope to add a little more info. And I've enjoyed your
> responses back.
And I've enjoyed yours.
So nice to have a conversation with an intelligent person.
>
> -Xan
Duwaynea Anderson
> > > the good fight.
>
> > > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues to
> > > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watershed
> > > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> > > continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
> > > losing battle. And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
>
> > > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too many
> > > times to count.
>
> > • "... We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, the
> > cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character that
> > you can mention."
> > --- Brigham Young
>
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> In the Wild Wild West, these were talents to be admired.
>
> it.
>
> -Xan
One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
unconditionally condemn genocide (I do) and he opposes marriage for
gays (I don't).
Duwaynea Anderson
The also targeted homosexuals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<abb49375-a145-4268...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:30=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <102dc8c9-efc9-4262-bedd-76bb8feeb...@s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 2:33=3DA0am, Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability o=
> f sa=3D
> > > yng
> > > > > > anything important. <G>
> >
> > > > > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing Mormons=
> ,"
> > > > > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
> >
> > > > > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the evidence
> > > > > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" can do
> > > > > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important."
> >
> > > > > Here's the link to that story, again:
> >
> > > > >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-eff=
> ort/
> >
> > > > > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is that th=
> e
> > > > > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
> > > > > Mormon apologists. =3DA0It doesn't seem to matter at all to "You" a=
> nd
> > > > > Fuller that their church lied. =3DA0That doesn't seem to bother the=
> m at
> > > > > all. =3DA0Rather, it seems the most important thing for "You" and F=
> uller
> > > > > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if they
> > > > > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
> >
> > > > > DuwayneAnderson
> > > > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > > > > science"
> > > > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > > > I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning for
> > > > posting something on-topic and 2) you Duwayne for continuing to fight
> > > > the good fight.
> >
> > > > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues to
> > > > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watershed
> > > > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> > > > continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
> > > > losing battle. =3DA0And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
> >
> > > > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too many
> > > > times to count. =3DA0I vividly remember my reaction to some of those
> > > > threads (John Taylor and polygamy anyone?) and certainly felt much
> > > > anger at the time. I expressed it in the form of sarcasm, parody,
> > > > satire ... and often, when humor couldn't dull my pain, pure and nake=
> d
> > > > derision. =3DA0If I have any regrets about those comments, it is that=
> they
> > > > should have more often been directed at leaders of the LDS Church,
> > > > which is after all, the main source of perpetuating this culture of
> > > > deception, prevarication, misdirection, obfuscation and, let's call
> > > > this pig what it is: lying.
> >
> > > > Someone -- and I find it amusing that there is some debate as to whom
> > > > -- once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." =3DA0One t=
> hing
> > > > I appreciated when I read through the proceedings of Perry v.
> > > > Schwarzenegger was how much of the plaintiffs' case was built on
> > > > them. =3DA0And not just the sheer volume of numeric data they submitt=
> ed
> > > > into evidence, but the extent to which their expert witnesses
> > > > explained the methodology used to obtain them, and the conclusions
> > > > that could be determined from them.
> >
> > > > So powerful were these data that even the defendants' two expert
> > > > witnesses could not and did not convincingly refute the major points
> > > > of the plaintiffs' case. =3DA0Note even further that two (I think tha=
> t's
> > > > right) of the defendants' witnesses were dropped from the case after
> > > > their depositions because they had the intellectual and moral
> > > > integrity to review a set of numbers and draw the same conclusion tha=
> t
> > > > any honest social scientist worth their salt would: the Yes on 8
> > > > advanced their campaign on baseless falsehoods.
> >
> > > > Note that I didn't say lies. =3DA0So, here's my main thesis and the r=
> eal
> > > > reason for my post. =3DA0Since I've been away from ARM, and especiall=
> y
> > > > recently as I've been watching this issue unfold, I've come to believ=
> e
> > > > that the grassroots, in-the-trenches supporters of any creed, cause,
> > > > issue or campaign fervently believe that they are spreading truth.
> > > > Further, when such supporters fully believe in what they represent,
> > > > many become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own leaders
> > > > lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly clear
> > > > that lies were told.
> >
> > > > This dynamic can go pretty far up the hierarchy of an organization, b=
> e
> > > > it a church, cause, or campaign organization. =3DA0I have an anecdota=
> l
> > > > piece of evidence to offer in support. =3DA0One of the witness testim=
> onies
> > > > in Perry v. Schwarzenegger came from a witness named Dr. Hak-Shing
> > > > William Tam. =3DA0By way of background, Dr. Tam was a Yes on Prop. 8
> > > > supporter, and secretary of one of the organizations in the Yes on 8
> > > > coalition. =3DA0Not a major leader in the campaign, but a mid-level
> > > > supporter with extensive contacts in various California Asian
> > > > Christian organizations. =3DA0According to his testimony, his
> > > > organization's efforts accounted for about 20,000 of the signatures
> > > > that put Prop. 8 on the ballot. =3DA0Even though he was a Prop. 8
> > > > supporter, he was called to the stand as witness by the plaintiffs,
> > > > something the defendants' counsel desperately sought to block. =3DA0H=
> ere's
> > > > an excerpt:
> >
> > > > =3DA0[Boies] You believe that after Netherlands legalized same-sex
> > > > =3DA0marriage, the Netherlands went on after that to legalize incest
> > > > =3DA0and polygamy?
> > > > =3DA0[Tam] It says here "to date." It does not say something caused
> > > > =3DA0the other to happen. However, it shows the moral decay of a
> > > > =3DA0liberal country in their views of sex.
> > > > =3DA0[Boies] You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was
> > > > =3DA0legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy.
> > > > =3DA0Whether that was causal or not, you're saying that's
> > > > =3DA0what happened after same sex was legalized, correct, same-sex
> > > > =3DA0marriage?
> > > > =3DA0[Tam] Yeah, look at the date. It's -- polygamy happens
> > > > =3DA0afterwards.
> > > > =3DA0[Boies] Who told you that, sir? Where did you get that idea?
> > > > =3DA0[Tam] It's in the internet.
> > > > =3DA0[Boies] In the internet?
> > > > =3DA0[Tam] Yeah.
> > > > =3DA0[Boies] Somewhere out in the internet it says that the Netherlan=
> ds
> > > > =3DA0legalized incest and polygamy in 2005?
> > > > =3DA0[Tam] Frankly, I did not write this, all right? Polygamy was
> > > > =3DA0legalized in 2005. Another person in the organization found it
> > > > =3DA0and he showed me that.
> >
> > > ---
> >
> > > > Now, it could be that Dr. Tam is a rotten lying bastard. =3DA0Certain=
> ly,
> > > > things come out of his mouth that I consider filth. =3DA0Or in this
> > > > specific case, absurd to the point of hilarity. =3DA0But this witness=
> is
> > > > one whose testimony I read every single word of because I simply coul=
> d
> > > > not tear myself away from it, at the very least for the sheer
> > > > entertainment value. =3DA0And even though I loathe his visceral conte=
> mpt
> > > > of liberal countries and their attendant moral decay, having read his
> > > > entire testimony I believe the man is sincere -- he's a father of
> > > > young children, a man of deep and abiding believe in God, a patriotic
> > > > citizen admirably motivated to action, and he earnestly believes that
> > > > allowing gay people to get married is a significant threat to his
> > > > family. =3DA0And that thought invokes in me a measure of sympathy and
> > > > respect -- deep though I may need to dig to find it, because it's a
> > > > really, seriously, appallingly ludicrous point of view.
> >
> > > > With all that foundation laid, and in the spirit of friendly debate i=
> n
> > > > the best and finest tradition of ARM (and ARMF since we're cross
> > > > posting this one), I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issu=
> e
> > > > of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> > > > apologists." =3DA0Now, I don't know this "You" character, but when I =
> think
> > > > about Gene Fuller, Woody Brison, Charles Dowis, Diana and others, I
> > > > would say that ethics and morality are just as important to them as
> > > > they are to Duwayne and myself. =3DA0But they have very different eth=
> ics
> > > > and morality. =3DA0I find many of their ethics repugnant, and much of
> > > > their morality illogical, silly, damaging and dangerous. =3DA0As far =
> as I
> > > > know, none of the apologists I've listed are politicians (or General
> > > > Authorities), where lack of a moral compass is a requirement (I jest,
> > > > I jest), so here, this one time in the public record I'll cut them
> > > > some slack in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they can for once
> > > > prove Duwayne wrong.
> >
> > > > Stranger things have happened.
> >
> > > > -Xan
> >
> > > I see your point, Xan.
> >
> > > And, furthering your argument, I think you've just proven that the
> > > Nazis were moral, ethical and patriotic people. =A0After all, the men
> > > who served in the Third Reich were fathers of young children, highly
> > > patriotic, and doing what they thought was the morally and ethically
> > > right thing to do. It's just that they had a *different* morality and
> > > a *different* ethics -- where killing women and children was okay, as
> > > long as they were Jews. ..
> >
> > ** =A0The SS managed to kill 98% of the Gypsies and 55% of the Jews in Eu=
> rope.
>
> The also targeted homosexuals:
>
** Indeed, such as Ernst Rohm, the leader of the Brown Shirts.
Xan Du
wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:59 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Xan, before you read this post I'd like you to internalize the fact
> that I really enjoy conversing with you, and hold you in high esteem.
> Keep that in mind as you read my comments, as I tend to be blunt and
> I'm not worth a damn when it comes to finesse. I tend to come across
> as a cranky old bastard, which I may or may not be -- but don't let
> that lead you to thinking I don't have the utmost respect for your
> personally.
You've done an excellent job of attacking my *arguments* ... I fully
expected you to do that, and welcomed it. I already knew you
respected me personally, but it's still good to hear it, thanks. I of
course return the same -- you're a real champion for the cause of
truth, and I have a lot of respect for the fact that you've kept up
the effort these many years.
Before I get into my point-by-point response, I also want to preface
them by saying this: I know that if I stick to my guns on points you
disagree with that we'll just get into an infinite loop. I don't want
that to happen because I'm trying to learn something about how the
general process of political action and social change works in our
society. On the subject of same-sex marriage, I'm rather firmly set
in my opinions about it: I think marriage laws should not
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, period.
Where I'm trying to evolve my thinking is not about the specific issue
at hand, but rather the general political process that influence the
outcomes ballot initiatives, legislation and court decisions. I'm on
a general quest for knowledge here because our country, and indeed the
world, faces serious economic and environmental issues, and many
others. In this country, I feel that our political system --
particularly at the Federal level -- is becoming more and more
broken. I also think our culture and society is sick and getting
worse. We're in a lot of danger here, not from suicide bombers but
from ourselves. I'm afraid, and I feel powerless to do anything about
it. I'm tired of feeling powerless, tired of my own apathy. I'm
angry at myself and the rest of the shrinking American middle class
for sitting on our asses while we let special interests and lobbyists
give our country away to oil companies and foreign interests. We
should be a world leader in researching how to stop climate change,
not squabbling about whether it's really happening while the rest of
the world shakes their head at us silly Americans and gets on with
it. I'm afraid that we're circling the drain, and I desperately want
us to find the plug.
I want to help find that plug, and one way I know I can do it is to
get the word out. So, I'm using same sex marriage as a way to learn
about the larger process because it's something I've been interested
in, and I have a firm conviction about it. Prop. 22 in California was
a defining event in my life, a tipping point that hastened my
departure for Mormonism because, like you, I really do feel that the
LDS position is indefensible. I also agree that the church as an
organization has behaved unethically. In this thread, I've
deliberately been reserving judgement. As I've explained before, some
of that has been as a technique to manufuacture debate. Is that a
little sneaky? Hey, I've been a Mormon for most of my life, I can't
help it. (Kidding!!) But I'm also reserving judgement because I
think there's more evidence to be had. Once I have it, I think I can
build a stronger case to support the argument that the church. I'm
waiting for the court to send me my access codes so I can review the
direct evidence myself ... I don't want to rely on news outlets and
bloggers to do it for me.
So as you read my responses below keep this in mind: I don't want to
get too bogged down in the tit for tat. I have bigger fish to fry and
I hope you'll find that I'm a good cook. Until then, please do
continue to help me sharpen and focus my arguments. I need the
practice, and I genuinely enjoy the exchange.
> <snip>
>
> > I see a very big difference between a low-echelon LDS on the stump for
> > a political campaign, and the LDS leadership that organized the
> > campaign, directed church funds to it, etc.
>
> Oh! I do to! One is a low-echelon member stumping for a political
> campaign and the other is a leader in the church.
>
> Obviously.
>
> > I think sincerity is part
> > of it, but perhaps intent and knowledge are maybe a better way to look
> > at it. I think we're on the same page here.
>
> I think a person can be sincere and do bad things. As I pointed out,
> many members of the Natzi party were sincere. They thought they were
> patriots. They really did think that the Jews presented a threat to
> Germany.
>
> But that doesn't justify their support of the Natzi party, or the
> "ultimate solution."
The Holocaust was orders of magnitude more destructive in terms of
human casualty than the passage of Prop. 8. It's a subject deserving
of its own discussion, and I'm not prepared to do it right now. I
understand why you introduced it to this thread as a way to disagree
with how I'm trying to define morality and ethics, but it's so far
removed from the specific topic of this thread that I'm having trouble
making it work for me. I think I can say what I'm trying to say
without invoking Hitler. I know you won't let me off the hook that
easily, so I will try to come back to it in the future because I think
it's important for me to consider it. But for this post I'm going to
concentrate more on the topic of the original thread.
> I marvel at the way religion has become the new justification. People
> seem to think that "faith" can make "stupid" into something else. We
> see religious folk wallowing in their "faith" as they use it to excuse
> everything from racism to intellectual dishonesty to lying, to praying
> for the death of a president, to belief in stupid, stupid, stupid
> things.
>
> But just because a person has "faith" in something doesn't mean it's
> not "stupid," and just because a person has "faith" in a thing doesn't
> mean it's not evil.
Religion a *new* justification? What about these OT scriptures we've
been quoting? The Inquisition? Crusades? Explain how religion is a
"new" justification. It seems inconsistent for you to say that.
I used to be a big fan of Bill Maher. He's funny and snarky in a way
that I like a lot. More recently I've become a fan of Richard
Dawkins, and I like him because, well, he's a hell of a lot smarter
than Maher, more highly educated, and brings better arguments to the
table. When I'm in a mood for snarky, I watch Jon Stewart, who I
think is smarter and funnier than Maher as well, and who talks about a
broader diversity of issues. Anyway, I digress.
Maher and Dawkins both share the common belief that religion is really
a terrible thing for society: it justifies a lot of bad behavior,
doesn't encourage good thinking, is a mechanism for manipulation and
deceit, a tool used by one group to repress or eliminate other groups,
the list goes on. Before I began to follow Dawkins, listening to
Maher I would ask myself what would the world be like if there weren't
religion. And as I started to follow Dawikins (some reading, mostly
watching his lectures and book tour speeches online) I really started
to become fascinated with the same rhetorical question.
As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins obviously preaches that humans
have evolved in accordance to the principles of Darwinian fitness.
Our brains and our bodies ... our behaviors are the way they are
because evolution selected out the genes that made us less fit, and
selected in the genes that made us a better fit. Extending that
argument to its logical conclusion, I submit the proposition that
religion is a product of evolution. If Dawkins were here, I would ask
him to explain that to me. (If I weren't feeling lazy, I'd look it
up, he may have talked about it already.) I think I know his
philosophy well enough to say that one of his answers would be that he
himself is an atheist, and evolution also created *that*. I think he
would also make the point that evolution isn't deterministic: it
doesn't create the most optimal or "best" solution, but rather
solutions that are marginally better than everything else -- ones that
are just good enough. (I recall one thread years ago where you cited
this as evidence against intelligent design -- you would expect an
intelligent designer to produce the optimal solution -- so I think
this argument will resonate with you.)
Evolution is responsible for our intelligence, relative lack of it.
Stupidity might be an evolutionary advantage. Religion certainly is,
otherwise it wouldn't exist. Greed, aggression, racism, lying,
intellectual dishonesty ... it's all genetic. And finally my point:
religion isn't the primary causal factor for immoral behavior. If
religion vanished and everything else remained equal, we'd still be
left with greed, aggression, parochialism, xenophobia and deceit. And
guess what, a lot of people would still be stupid, and they still
wouldn't check their facts, and they'd still continue to believe what
they wanted to believe even when those beliefs are demonstrably wrong
-- evidence and fact be damned. Take global warming. Not a religious
issue, but one where a significant amount of people persist in denying
its existence, relevance and danger because of a highly funded
corporate campaign funded by evil greedy people who stand to get very
very (more) rich by keeping governments from doing anything about it.
I really honestly don't believe that faith gives people any right or
justification to be "evil" in the sense that we're using that word
here. When any church or religious group does something that I think
harms the greater good, or harms a specific demographic group, or
slaughters innocent people, I stand against that.
In a lecture Dawkins gave at UC Berkeley while on tour to promote _The
God Delusion_ he made the point that religion is a taboo topic, both
in private and public discourse. It seems to have a protected status
-- it's something that isn't allowed to be criticized, for when it is
the critic is vilified with charges of prejudice and intolerance. I
think he makes a good point, and it influences my thinking a great
deal. But where I am today, right now, and in the context of this
particular discussion is that there's more than enough ammunition to
argue for legalization of gay marriage on legal, factual and logical
merits alone. I don't think it's strictly necessary to impeach
religion as an institution to do it, in fact I think it's
counterproductive to the cause because that plays into the very fears
of Prop. 8's religious supporters. So when I talk about trying to
understand the supporters' fears, when I say I have sympathy for their
underlying beliefs, it's because I'm trying to find a basis to argue
in support of gay rights that doesn't put them off and has a chance of
overcoming their own prejudice and allays their fears.
> And (just pressing home the point) just because everyday Mormons
> believed in the lies their superiors were telling them doesn't mean
> they really honor and respect the truth.
Can't argue with that logic. But I believe that many of them do
respect truth and fair play; that's why I wrote my original post, and
one reason why I continue to keep at it with you. I think it's
unfortunate that none of them have taken it up. ARM is not what it
used to be and I am saddened by that.
> So while I would *never* minimize the culpability of the evil men that
> run/operate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'm
> unwilling to let the common members off the hook for spreading the
> lies those evil men told -- even *if* the stupid members were doing it
> out of religious sincerity.
I understand and respect that position. I'm being deliberately -- and
one might argue obtusely -- lenient with respect to the rank and file
as an experiment. To see how it feels and whether it works. One
thing I think about a lot is the culture of punishment in this
country, how and why we assign blame, and then what we do about it. I
think it's a real problem. When people get caught using illegal drugs
we throw them in jail, but when bankers make risky investments and
engage in predatory lending practices that lead to economic meltdown
we give them billions of dollars. Pardon my french, but that is
really fucked up.
To be perfectly honest, I'd like to see some Prop. 8 supporters get
punished. But what I think is true is that the Yes on 8 campaign
consists, metaphorically, of bankers and drug users. LDS leadership,
the bankers, created a wall of plausible deniability around themselves
and the rank and file, the drug users, drank the Kool-Aid. The
highest level Yes on 8 campaign official who took the stand was Dr.
Tam. Lance Wickman, the head legal counsel for the LDS church
didn't. His name wasn't in the amicus brief the Church filed for
Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, but you can bet he was involved in drafting
it. (On a side note, Wickman served two tours in Vietnam as a Ranger,
the first one in the infantry and the second as a "military advisor"
-- can you say covert ops? He's a guy who understands plausible
deniability.) So here's where some of my "sympathy" for Dr. Tam comes
in to play ... he was a small cog in a very big and powerful machine,
but he was the biggest fish that the Perry litigators chose to fry.
I'm really curious about why.
More to the point, when I see a large organization like the LDS church
feed its members bad information, and those members go out and act on
it, I see an opportunity to educate, not punish or condemn. To take
that stance requires me to assume some good faith on the part of the
rank and file. That's what I'm trying to do here, engage in some
grassroots to grassroots dialog. The whole reason this issue has now
ended up in the courts is because of a failure of activists and
supporters on *both* sides of the issue to resolve it amongst
themselves.
I realize I'm being idealistic here. It's deliberate, not naive. But
pound away, I want to hear your response.
> BTW -- I hold myself in condemnation on this matter. I was a an
> active member of the LDS cult for about 35 years and *I* spread that
> LDS shit as a missionary. I have tried to repent of those sins. I
> continue in the effort.
ARM is your penance? Suddenly some things make sense to me. Forgive
yourself man. As Profit, Seer and Prevaricator, I absolve you.
I don't mean to make light of your efforts, but you know how I like to
kid around ....
> <snip>
>
> > > If it's okay to tell lies because one is a deluded cult member, then
> > > what's next? Murder? Why not? Numbers 31 describes people
> > > committing genocide for a prophet they thought spoke for god. Is
> > > genocide excusable simply because the people committing it thought god
> > > wanted it done?
>
> > I see your Numbers 31 with my personal favorite: Judges 21. Men,
> > married women and male children all killed so the Benjamites could
> > kinap and rape the female children of a neighboring tribe all so their
> > own sons could have wives.
>
> > And, more topically, I'll raise you Leviticus 21, particularly the
> > bits about burning homosexuals because, well, they're gay and they
> > need to burn, amirite? I think it's bullshit too, ok?
>
> Okay. But I wonder if you missed my point. If (as you seem to be
> arguing) its okay to spread lies if one does it with religious
> conviction and sincerity, then where does that line of reasoning end?
I haven't missed your point. I think you're missing mine. Or just
not accepting my position, which is ok. Maybe we're just talking past
each other in defense of our positions.
All I'm arguing is that I think it's ok to assume good faith when
people do bad things based on bad information. I try to condemn
actions and ideas before condemning people, not always successfully,
but I try because I think it's more constructive sometimes to do so.
> If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> genocide?
>
> If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> incest?
>
> If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> praying for the president to be murdered?
No to all Duwayne, come ON.
> > Let me further go on record that I absolutely condemn the Third Reich.
>
> Good. So do I. And it doesn't matter a damn to me that some of them
> were patriots, fathers of young children, or devoutly religious.
>
> > So far we're in agreement, then maybe we diverge, maybe not. I'll try
> > to clean up my argument further down.
>
> > > How about parents that kill their child by withholding medical
> > > treatment because they think god will heal the kid? Is their sincere
> > > delusion a valid excuse for child abuse?
>
> > I know there's legal precedent on such cases,
>
> In some cases there is. And such protection is an abomination -- it's
> absolutely absurd.
>
> My point, though, is that you seem to side with the notion that
> religious piety is some sort of justification for stupid or evil
> things. That being the case, I'd expect you to deal softly with
> parents that kill their kids our of religious piety/stupidity.
>
> I wouldn't.
I'm saying that understanding people's motivations from a position of
respect may be a useful way to try to change their behavior.
> > but I don't know if it
> > ever made it to the Federal level or not. Personally, I'd want the
> > law to protect the child, but it's a gnarly issue.
>
> Why is it "gnarly?"
Because I'm an advocate of the First Amendment right protecting the
right to practice religion. I also think that people have a right to
raise their children as they see fit to do it, with qualifications of
course, but that is an important right.
This issue gets "gnarly" when religious practice is seen to cause harm
to innocent and/or powerless people, particularly when the people
needing protection are the minor children of religious parents. I
reiterate that I think that protecting minors outweighs protecting the
adults' beliefs. But that also causes problems because I *also*
support freedom of choice with respect to abortion. So you see, I
have some potential conflicts in my moral code, and "gnarly" was my
way of putting off the discussion of an issue that I wasn't quite
prepared to discuss in any detail or with any nuance.
> Why should delusions be a defense for
> manslaughter?
It shouldn't, you're putting words in my mouth.
> > So, I'll counter with this: one of the stated concerns of the Yes on 8
> > campaign was that legalizing same-sex marriage would open the door to
> > adoption of children by gay couples, and that this is a Bad Thing.
>
> Who says it's a bad thing? The same people that said interracial
> marriages are a "bad thing?"
They said it was a bad thing. Period. Just restating their position
while deliberately not making any value judgments on the position
itself. Why? Because I was setting up the argument that this
position was logically untenable ... it didn't make any sense because
laws already on the books prior to Prop. 8 going on the ballot already
gave gay Californian couples the right to adopt children.
Of course, this is a good example of the duplicitous nature of the Yes
on 8 campaign ... a real smoking gun. And if argued properly, I think
it could cause some *reasonable* and ethical Mormons to begin to
question their leaders' motives. I see that as a Good Thing.
> But we digress. The issue here is the way the church *lied.* If the
> only thing the church and its members did was argue the *merits* of
> the issue, using data, reason, and logic, there would be no uproar.
> Nobody is saying that Mormons aren't entitled to their opinion. The
> uproar is over the way the LDS Church leaders and members *lied.*
>
> Lying is bad. But you seem to be giving the members (at least) a pass
> on lying because the poor stupid dolts were only passing on lies their
> evil leaders told them, and they were doing it out of religious piety
> and conviction.
Agree, agree, agree that lying is bad. But I don't believe it for a
minute that if the Yes on 8 campaign had used good data, logic, and
argued on the merits of the issue that there wouldn't be an uproar.
And maybe that's where some *real* difference between you and I starts
to show itself. I would be just as mad at the LDS church for
supporting Prop. 8 even if their participation in the campaign had
been 100% above board.
The fact that they lied about things *is* important to me, and I don't
condone it. What they supported -- denial of clearly given
constitutional rights -- is the real wrong. And my operating
principle here is that it's more constructive to address the actual
issues of the case rather than bang on the lies and bad faith in how
the Yes on 8 campaign was executed.
Again, this all comes back to my overarching sense that political
discourse in this country is for shit. It's largely based on ad
hominem smear tactics, accusations of bad faith and lying. The issues
themselves suffer for it, and I'm fucking tired of it.
(Not pissed at you here Duwyane, just venting a little and making a
point.)
> > One immediate problem with that argument is that Califorinia laws
> > already protect the right of any couple to adopt children regardless
> > of whether it's a heretosexual marriage, or same sex civil union, so
> > long as that couple meets all of the other adoption requirements. In
> > other words, Prop. 8 wouldn't have had an effect either way in
> > California. Of course, this is more than just about California, it
> > was really setting the stage for what is now a Federal case.
>
> > Protecting kids from "immoral" gay people was a common theme in the
> > Yes on 8 campaign. The motiviation is to obviously protect their own
> > children from influences of Evil, even if that means imposing their
> > own religious beliefs on everyone's children to get it. As such, it
> > was given a lot of attention in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
>
> > I'm gonna leave it there for now and move on.
>
> As I said, Mormons are as entitled to discuss the merits of the case
> as anyone else. I don't believe they are entitled to lie without
> being called liars.
>
> If Mormons believe that gay parents are bad for kids, let them present
> their case. Let them do it *honestly* and without *lying.* Let them
> represent the scientific evidence *honestly.*
>
> The whole issue here is Mormon lying, and whether or not that
> distinctly unethical behavior is somehow justifiable or less unethical
> simply because these cult members were acting out of a sense of
> religious "faith."
I think that would be great. I seriously doubt they would do it. But
that doesn't have to keep *me* from taking the high road. This is
really one of my main fundamental points in this entire discussion.
<snip>
> > Thanks. I hope to add a little more info. And I've enjoyed your
> > responses back.
>
> And I've enjoyed yours.
>
> So nice to have a conversation with an intelligent person.
Sorry for the big snip, I'm out of time for this session. I may come
back to your other points, but as sometimes happens I think we were
beginning to cover the same ground over and over. I hope that I added
enough new material to keep the discussion interesting. And yes, it
is nice to talk to someone intelligent, I have missed it, and will do
my best to not fade away so completely in the future.
-Xan
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Feb 18, 12:08 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 9:59 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Xan, before you read this post I'd like you to internalize the fact
> > that I really enjoy conversing with you, and hold you in high esteem.
> > Keep that in mind as you read my comments, as I tend to be blunt and
> > I'm not worth a damn when it comes to finesse. I tend to come across
> > as a cranky old bastard, which I may or may not be -- but don't let
> > that lead you to thinking I don't have the utmost respect for your
> > personally.
>
> You've done an excellent job of attacking my *arguments* ... I fully
> expected you to do that, and welcomed it. I already knew you
> respected me personally, but it's still good to hear it, thanks. I of
> course return the same -- you're a real champion for the cause of
> truth, and I have a lot of respect for the fact that you've kept up
> the effort these many years.
>
> Before I get into my point-by-point response, I also want to preface
> them by saying this:
----
> I know that if I stick to my guns on points you
> disagree with that we'll just get into an infinite loop.
No physical process can be infinite.
> I don't want
> that to happen because I'm trying to learn something about how the
> general process of political action and social change works in our
> society. On the subject of same-sex marriage, I'm rather firmly set
> in my opinions about it: I think marriage laws should not
> discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, period.
So we agree on that point.
>
> Where I'm trying to evolve my thinking is not about the specific issue
> at hand, but rather the general political process that influence the
> outcomes ballot initiatives, legislation and court decisions.
I don't think we disagree over the processes that involved the
outcomes, either.
I think the only place where we disagree is in the allowance that
should be given to people that do stupid or bad things out of
religious conviction. You seem to think that religious motivation is
a mitigating factor. I don't.
> I'm on
> a general quest for knowledge here because our country, and indeed the
> world, faces serious economic and environmental issues, and many
> others. In this country, I feel that our political system --
> particularly at the Federal level -- is becoming more and more
> broken. I also think our culture and society is sick and getting
> worse. We're in a lot of danger here, not from suicide bombers but
> from ourselves.
I could not agree more.
> I'm afraid, and I feel powerless to do anything about
> it. I'm tired of feeling powerless, tired of my own apathy. I'm
> angry at myself and the rest of the shrinking American middle class
> for sitting on our asses while we let special interests and lobbyists
> give our country away to oil companies and foreign interests.
Again, I could not agree more.
> We
> should be a world leader in researching how to stop climate change,
> not squabbling about whether it's really happening while the rest of
> the world shakes their head at us silly Americans and gets on with
> it. I'm afraid that we're circling the drain, and I desperately want
> us to find the plug.
>
> I want to help find that plug, and one way I know I can do it is to
> get the word out. So, I'm using same sex marriage as a way to learn
> about the larger process because it's something I've been interested
> in, and I have a firm conviction about it. Prop. 22 in California was
> a defining event in my life, a tipping point that hastened my
> departure for Mormonism because, like you, I really do feel that the
> LDS position is indefensible. I also agree that the church as an
> organization has behaved unethically. In this thread, I've
> deliberately been reserving judgement. As I've explained before, some
> of that has been as a technique to manufuacture debate. Is that a
> little sneaky? Hey, I've been a Mormon for most of my life, I can't
> help it. (Kidding!!) But I'm also reserving judgement because I
> think there's more evidence to be had. Once I have it, I think I can
> build a stronger case to support the argument that the church. I'm
> waiting for the court to send me my access codes so I can review the
> direct evidence myself ... I don't want to rely on news outlets and
> bloggers to do it for me.
>
----
> So as you read my responses below keep this in mind: I don't want to
> get too bogged down in the tit for tat. I have bigger fish to fry and
> I hope you'll find that I'm a good cook. Until then, please do
> continue to help me sharpen and focus my arguments. I need the
> practice, and I genuinely enjoy the exchange.
As do I.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > I see a very big difference between a low-echelon LDS on the stump for
> > > a political campaign, and the LDS leadership that organized the
> > > campaign, directed church funds to it, etc.
>
> > Oh! I do to! One is a low-echelon member stumping for a political
> > campaign and the other is a leader in the church.
>
> > Obviously.
>
> > > I think sincerity is part
> > > of it, but perhaps intent and knowledge are maybe a better way to look
> > > at it. I think we're on the same page here.
>
----
> > I think a person can be sincere and do bad things. As I pointed out,
> > many members of the Natzi party were sincere. They thought they were
> > patriots. They really did think that the Jews presented a threat to
> > Germany.
>
> > But that doesn't justify their support of the Natzi party, or the
> > "ultimate solution."
>
> The Holocaust was orders of magnitude more destructive in terms of
> human casualty than the passage of Prop. 8.
Agreed. But where do you draw the line? If you let people use
religious conviction as an acceptable excuse for *some* evils, but not
others, on what objective basis do you allow it in one case, but deny
it in another?
And how do you keep from going down the slippery slope, where the
excuse of religion becomes acceptable for more and more crimes until
it effectively becomes a "get out of jail free" card?
That's the point I'm making. If it's okay to work tirelessly to
destroy the civil rights of Gays out of religious conviction, then how
about working to destroy (as the LDS Church did) the civil rights of
Blacks? How about working to threaten the health and safety of
children by letting parents kill their kids out of religious
conviction? How about giving someone a "pass" for murdering an
abortion doctor?
These are all examples from contemporary American society where
religious half-wits have engaged in evil and violence and tried to
condone it because of their religious conviction. If religious
conviction is an acceptable excuse for Mormons telling lies as they
try to destroy the civil rights of Gays, then why not let it be an
acceptable to use religion as an excuse for all those other evils?
> It's a subject deserving
> of its own discussion, and I'm not prepared to do it right now. I
> understand why you introduced it to this thread as a way to disagree
> with how I'm trying to define morality and ethics, but it's so far
> removed from the specific topic of this thread that I'm having trouble
> making it work for me. I think I can say what I'm trying to say
> without invoking Hitler. I know you won't let me off the hook that
> easily, so I will try to come back to it in the future because I think
> it's important for me to consider it. But for this post I'm going to
> concentrate more on the topic of the original thread.
>
---
> > I marvel at the way religion has become the new justification. People
> > seem to think that "faith" can make "stupid" into something else. We
> > see religious folk wallowing in their "faith" as they use it to excuse
> > everything from racism to intellectual dishonesty to lying, to praying
> > for the death of a president, to belief in stupid, stupid, stupid
> > things.
>
> > But just because a person has "faith" in something doesn't mean it's
> > not "stupid," and just because a person has "faith" in a thing doesn't
> > mean it's not evil.
>
> Religion a *new* justification? What about these OT scriptures we've
> been quoting? The Inquisition? Crusades? Explain how religion is a
> "new" justification. It seems inconsistent for you to say that.
Point taken. It's not a "new" justification at all, from an
historical POV. But it does seem to be "new" in a sense to
contemporary American society. I don't think America was as open to
using the "religion" excuse 50 years ago, quite to the extent that
they are today.
>
> I used to be a big fan of Bill Maher. He's funny and snarky in a way
> that I like a lot. More recently I've become a fan of Richard
> Dawkins, and I like him because, well, he's a hell of a lot smarter
> than Maher, more highly educated, and brings better arguments to the
> table. When I'm in a mood for snarky, I watch Jon Stewart, who I
> think is smarter and funnier than Maher as well, and who talks about a
> broader diversity of issues. Anyway, I digress.
>
----
> Maher and Dawkins both share the common belief that religion is really
> a terrible thing for society: it justifies a lot of bad behavior,
> doesn't encourage good thinking, is a mechanism for manipulation and
> deceit, a tool used by one group to repress or eliminate other groups,
> the list goes on. Before I began to follow Dawkins, listening to
> Maher I would ask myself what would the world be like if there weren't
> religion. And as I started to follow Dawikins (some reading, mostly
> watching his lectures and book tour speeches online) I really started
> to become fascinated with the same rhetorical question.
For the record, I think Dawkins is spot on.
>
> As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins obviously preaches that humans
> have evolved in accordance to the principles of Darwinian fitness.
> Our brains and our bodies ... our behaviors are the way they are
> because evolution selected out the genes that made us less fit, and
> selected in the genes that made us a better fit. Extending that
> argument to its logical conclusion, I submit the proposition that
> religion is a product of evolution.
Dawkins would agree.
> If Dawkins were here, I would ask
> him to explain that to me.
You should read his books. He describes it in "The God Delusion."
Basically, he points out that *many* evolved characteristics have
primary and secondary causes. For example, the index finger on your
right hand can be used to pull out small bugs in the fur of your
mate. It can also be used to pick berries, pick up sticks, or pick
your nose. It can be used to make tools, too. All those things are
useful. But it can *also* be used to pull the trigger of a gun and
blow your brains out; not useful at all (for survival). Still, on
balance, the survival *advantages* outweigh the survival
*disadvantages.*
Dawkins suggests that religion is a secondary *disadvantage* that is
attached to another effect that has (on balance) a greater survival
*advantage.*
He suggests that the primary evolutionary trait might be the tendency
to believe and obey. This is an extremely important trait for young
children, with high value for survival. Religion (in this view) is
then seen as a secondary trait that is disadvantageous to the
organism, even though (overall) the tendency to believe and obey is an
advantageous trait.
> (If I weren't feeling lazy, I'd look it
> up, he may have talked about it already.)
Yeah. He did. Look, in your quest for knowledge there's just no
substitute for reading books. And don't use those damned kindle
things, either. Get one that's printed on acid free paper and write
all over in the margins.
----
> To be perfectly honest, I'd like to see some Prop. 8 supporters get
> punished.
To be perfectly honest I think that would be *horrible.*
Standing up for civil rights means standing up for *everyone's* civil
rights, including political opponents and the moron bearing his
testimony in LDS sacrament meetings.
Now, *lying* is something that should be punished. The LDS Church
should be stripped of its tax-exempt status for lying and breaking the
law. But neither the church nor it's stupid followers should be
punished for expressing their opinions.
----
> > BTW -- I hold myself in condemnation on this matter. I was a an
> > active member of the LDS cult for about 35 years and *I* spread that
> > LDS shit as a missionary. I have tried to repent of those sins. I
> > continue in the effort.
>
> ARM is your penance?
Who said anything about ARM?
> Suddenly some things make sense to me. Forgive
> yourself man. As Profit, Seer and Prevaricator, I absolve you.
Oh, thank you! Thank you!
Free! I am free! Thank god almighty, I'm free at last!
(sarcasm)
>
> I don't mean to make light of your efforts, but you know how I like to
> kid around ....
Likewise.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > If it's okay to tell lies because one is a deluded cult member, then
> > > > what's next? Murder? Why not? Numbers 31 describes people
> > > > committing genocide for a prophet they thought spoke for god. Is
> > > > genocide excusable simply because the people committing it thought god
> > > > wanted it done?
>
> > > I see your Numbers 31 with my personal favorite: Judges 21. Men,
> > > married women and male children all killed so the Benjamites could
> > > kinap and rape the female children of a neighboring tribe all so their
> > > own sons could have wives.
>
> > > And, more topically, I'll raise you Leviticus 21, particularly the
> > > bits about burning homosexuals because, well, they're gay and they
> > > need to burn, amirite? I think it's bullshit too, ok?
>
> > Okay. But I wonder if you missed my point. If (as you seem to be
> > arguing) its okay to spread lies if one does it with religious
> > conviction and sincerity, then where does that line of reasoning end?
>
> I haven't missed your point. I think you're missing mine. Or just
> not accepting my position, which is ok. Maybe we're just talking past
> each other in defense of our positions.
>
---
> All I'm arguing is that I think it's ok to assume good faith when
> people do bad things based on bad information. I try to condemn
> actions and ideas before condemning people, not always successfully,
> but I try because I think it's more constructive sometimes to do so.
If that is all you are saying, then I tend to agree. I don't doubt
that many of the Mormons who told lies were honestly just repeating
the lies they'd been told by their evil leaders. However, I believe
in personal responsibility and I think that the careless repetition of
a lie (whether out of religious conviction or not) is *wrong.*
I think people have an ethical obligation to get their facts straight
before they go blabbering.
>
> > If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> > genocide?
>
> > If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> > incest?
>
> > If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> > praying for the president to be murdered?
>
> No to allDuwayne, come ON.
Good. So I conclude that lies are *not* justifiable on the basis of
religious piety.
>
> > > Let me further go on record that I absolutely condemn the Third Reich.
>
> > Good. So do I. And it doesn't matter a damn to me that some of them
> > were patriots, fathers of young children, or devoutly religious.
>
> > > So far we're in agreement, then maybe we diverge, maybe not. I'll try
> > > to clean up my argument further down.
>
> > > > How about parents that kill their child by withholding medical
> > > > treatment because they think god will heal the kid? Is their sincere
> > > > delusion a valid excuse for child abuse?
>
> > > I know there's legal precedent on such cases,
>
> > In some cases there is. And such protection is an abomination -- it's
> > absolutely absurd.
>
> > My point, though, is that you seem to side with the notion that
> > religious piety is some sort of justification for stupid or evil
> > things. That being the case, I'd expect you to deal softly with
> > parents that kill their kids our of religious piety/stupidity.
>
> > I wouldn't.
>
----
> I'm saying that understanding people's motivations from a position of
> respect may be a useful way to try to change their behavior.
I agree.
>
> > > but I don't know if it
> > > ever made it to the Federal level or not. Personally, I'd want the
> > > law to protect the child, but it's a gnarly issue.
>
> > Why is it "gnarly?"
>
> Because I'm an advocate of the First Amendment right protecting the
> right to practice religion.
The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to "practice
religion." Read it. It says Congress can't make laws respecting
religion. But a law that says "Parents must give their children
proper medical care" is not a law about religion, it's a law about
taking care of your kids.
> I also think that people have a right to
> raise their children as they see fit to do it, with qualifications of
> course, but that is an important right.
Suppose they "see fit" to raise them to the age of 14 and then cook
them for dinner?
Obviously you wouldn't accept that. So why accept the idea that a
parent can let their child die a horribly painful death from (for
example) a burst appendix, without giving them proper medical
attention, just because of their stupid religion?
If you caused that much pain/suffering to a *cat* you'd go to jail.
Why should a child have to face that sort of death simply because
their parents are whacked-out morons drunk on superstition?
>
> This issue gets "gnarly" when religious practice is seen to cause harm
> to innocent and/or powerless people, particularly when the people
> needing protection are the minor children of religious parents.
You think it's gnarly because you seem to think religion trumps all
other rights.
> I
> reiterate that I think that protecting minors outweighs protecting the
> adults' beliefs.
Okay ... so you don't.
> But that also causes problems because I *also*
> support freedom of choice with respect to abortion. So you see, I
> have some potential conflicts in my moral code, and "gnarly" was my
> way of putting off the discussion of an issue that I wasn't quite
> prepared to discuss in any detail or with any nuance.
Okay.... thanks for the explanations.
>
> > Why should delusions be a defense for
> > manslaughter?
>
> It shouldn't, you're putting words in my mouth.
Sorry.
--
> The fact that they lied about things *is* important to me, and I don't
> condone it. What they supported -- denial of clearly given
> constitutional rights -- is the real wrong.
Okay ... we don't differ too much here.
> And my operating
> principle here is that it's more constructive to address the actual
> issues of the case rather than bang on the lies and bad faith in how
> the Yes on 8 campaign was executed.
One can do both.
>
> Again, this all comes back to my overarching sense that political
> discourse in this country is for shit. It's largely based on ad
> hominem smear tactics, accusations of bad faith and lying. The issues
> themselves suffer for it, and I'm fucking tired of it.
Good.
Later.
Thanks for the comments.
Xan Du
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 5:24 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 12:08 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 9:59 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > I know that if I stick to my guns on points you
> > disagree with that we'll just get into an infinite loop.
>
> No physical process can be infinite.
Well, I'm fairly sure that neither of us want to continue this
particular discussion for the rest of our natural lives ... :)
> > I don't want
> > that to happen because I'm trying to learn something about how the
> > general process of political action and social change works in our
> > society. On the subject of same-sex marriage, I'm rather firmly set
> > in my opinions about it: I think marriage laws should not
> > discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, period.
>
> So we agree on that point.
Yes, I agree that we agree. Agreed?
<snip more stuff we agreed on>
Since we've been debating here I've rethought my original arguments.
Some weren't fully formed and some were not clearly written. I
appreciate your feedback. I want to briefly reformulate my arguments
in response to the discussion we've been having. Here goes.
--------------------------------------
The proponents of Prop. 8 made factually incorrect public statements
over their campaign to pass the initiative. The LDS Church played a
leading role in supporting the Yes on 8 campaign, and actively
organized its efforts. In addition, the LDS Church aggressively
encouraged its members in California to contribute their own time and
money to support the campaign. To the extent that the LDS Church
knowingly disseminated false information to its members and the
general public during the course of the campaign, and continues to do
so, I strongly condemn its leadership.
I am less inclined to so strongly condemn LDS volunteers in California
who did not play a significant role in formulating the message of the
campaign itself. I support the right of all citizens to mobilize and
campaign in support of social and political issues. Even though I
disagree with their position on this issue, I respect their
willingness to act on their beliefs and mobilize to action.
More significantly, the LDS Church leadership discourages its members
from questioning its authority, doctrines and beliefs. Its members
are a product of a culture that conditions them to hold their leaders
in the highest esteem and to trust their wisdom, knowledge and honesty
above any other institution and authority. As a formerly active LDS
member, it has been my experience that many committed and devout
Mormons become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own
leaders lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly
clear that lies were told.
I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue of ethics and
morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
apologists." [Noting the clarification that your use of "apologist"
referred more to the likes of Nibley, FAIR, FARMS, not the "lay"
members I am describing in the previous paragraph.] I believe that
Mormonism is highly moral in that it represents a highly codified set
of beliefs, and that many of its members are highly ethical in that
seem to sincerely endeavor to live by its moral code.
--------------------------------------
So, that's more along the lines of what I originally wanted to write.
It's still choppy, doesn't really flow all that well, needs some
supporting evidence and citations ... in other words it's not really a
proper note or essay, more of an outline for some things I have to say
about this issue.
I purposely distilled it by leaving out the references to Dr. Tam and
other editorial asides. Also, the first three paragraphs are what I
care most about here ... the 4th paragraph is the "dig" to get people
talking. Though any hope of attracting LDS apologists to the
discussion in this forum is probably a vain one ... a fact that I'm
lamenting a great deal at present. I thought about leaving it out of
this post altogether.
I need to cut this short tonight, which is unfortunate. I want to
take up some of other things in your latest response, particularly the
discussion about Dawkins, but also some others.
Until next time,
Xan
<snip to end>
Curmugeon
have well formed comments, since I am not as interested as some others
are, but will comment anyway. My comments will be interspersed in what
follows.I will also make some snippage of what is of little or no
interest or at least not related to what I want to say.
On Feb 19, 11:31 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:38 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 5:24 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 12:08 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 9:59 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Snip
> Since we've been debating here I've rethought my original arguments.
> Some weren't fully formed and some were not clearly written. I
> appreciate your feedback. I want to briefly reformulate my arguments
> in response to the discussion we've been having. Here goes.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> The proponents of Prop. 8 made factually incorrect public statements
> over their campaign to pass the initiative.
I have no doubt that this is true, merely because that seems to be the
nature of political debate. However, some things may really appear to
be factually correct to some parties while at the same time seeming to
other parties to be factually incorrect. That may partly depend on the
access to information, the choice of sources of information, and of
course the subjective evaluation of the information as to its factual
accuracy.
> The LDS Church played a
> leading role in supporting the Yes on 8 campaign, and actively
> organized its efforts.
I really have no first hand knowledge on this point. I would suppose
that other groups and organizations had at least some part in the
organization of the efforts of the campaign.
> In addition, the LDS Church aggressively
> encouraged its members in California to contribute their own time and
> money to support the campaign.
Again, I have no direct knowledge. I do not live in California. It is
possible that this was exactly as stated by you, of course. It is also
possible that your understanding is colored a bit by your preference
regarding the outcome, isn't it?
>To the extent that the LDS Church
> knowingly disseminated false information to its members and the
> general public during the course of the campaign, and continues to do
> so, I strongly condemn its leadership.
Condemn is a bit stronger word than I would use, but to the extent
that the Church, as directed by its General Authorities disseminated
and/or disseminates false information, I also strongly criticize those
Authorites.
> I am less inclined to so strongly condemn LDS volunteers in California
> who did not play a significant role in formulating the message of the
> campaign itself. I support the right of all citizens to mobilize and
> campaign in support of social and political issues. Even though I
> disagree with their position on this issue, I respect their
> willingness to act on their beliefs and mobilize to action.
No comment.
> More significantly, the LDS Church leadership discourages its members
> from questioning its authority, doctrines and beliefs. Its members
> are a product of a culture that conditions them to hold their leaders
> in the highest esteem and to trust their wisdom, knowledge and honesty
> above any other institution and authority.
Which particular culture would that be, considering the outside the
United States membership as it exists today? I can see that your
statement may be true for those who were "Born Under the Covenant" as
4th generation members in a heavily LDS area. Not otherwise without
some of the supporting evidence that you later acknowledge is
missing.
> As a formerly active LDS
> member, it has been my experience that many committed and devout
> Mormons become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own
> leaders lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly
> clear that lies were told.
If that has happened to me, of course I would be incapable of
recognizing it, now wouldn't I? <g>
> I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue of ethics and
> morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> apologists."
Well, it seems so to him, apparently.
> [Noting the clarification that your use of "apologist"
> referred more to the likes of Nibley, FAIR, FARMS, not the "lay"
> members I am describing in the previous paragraph.] I believe that
> Mormonism is highly moral in that it represents a highly codified set
> of beliefs, and that many of its members are highly ethical in that
> seem to sincerely endeavor to live by its moral code.
I see you recognize the word "moral" to be rather descriptive than
prescriptive. Am I correct?
> --------------------------------------
>
> So, that's more along the lines of what I originally wanted to write.
> It's still choppy, doesn't really flow all that well, needs some
> supporting evidence and citations ... in other words it's not really a
> proper note or essay, more of an outline for some things I have to say
> about this issue.
Very good.
> I purposely distilled it by leaving out the references to Dr. Tam and
> other editorial asides. Also, the first three paragraphs are what I
> care most about here ... the 4th paragraph is the "dig" to get people
> talking. Though any hope of attracting LDS apologists to the
> discussion in this forum is probably a vain one ... a fact that I'm
> lamenting a great deal at present. I thought about leaving it out of
> this post altogether.
Why would that be?
> I need to cut this short tonight, which is unfortunate. I want to
> take up some of other things in your latest response, particularly the
> discussion about Dawkins, but also some others.
>
> Until next time,
> Xan
>
> <snip to end>
I have a son who thinks Richard Dawkins is brilliant. Of course he and
I disagree on several things. He thinks President Obama is great as
well, I think, or at least he pretended to a year or so ago.
Xan Du
I see that. I do wish he'd cut back on the OT stuff though, it only
makes the signal to noise ratio worse.
> Since there is no possible way to defend a
> prophet of God who got caught boning his wife's 16-yr old maid, perhaps
> the one true church has come to its senses and is presently encouraging
> TBMs to stop posting here?
In all seriousness, that's probably the best explanation I've heard so
far.
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
Xan Du
wrote:
I read a bit of the genocide thread. Seems like that was a while
ago. I suppose the "aunties" inability to get their talking points
straight makes the TBM's that much more cozy. But it is as it should
be.
Xan Du
> I will make a few comments and hope they will be welcome. I do not
> have well formed comments, since I am not as interested as some others
> are, but will comment anyway. My comments will be interspersed in what
> follows.I will also make some snippage of what is of little or no
> interest or at least not related to what I want to say.
All comments are welcome. And while well formed, and well informed,
comments are my favorite kind, discussion of any kind is always good.
> On Feb 19, 11:31 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 10:38 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 5:24 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 18, 12:08 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 17, 9:59 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> > Since we've been debating here I've rethought my original arguments.
> > Some weren't fully formed and some were not clearly written. I
> > appreciate your feedback. I want to briefly reformulate my arguments
> > in response to the discussion we've been having. Here goes.
>
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > The proponents of Prop. 8 made factually incorrect public statements
> > over their campaign to pass the initiative.
>
> I have no doubt that this is true, merely because that seems to be the
> nature of political debate.
I make the same assumption for the same reasons. However, the LDS
Church holds itself to an extremely high standard of honesty. Thomas
S. Monson claims to be on par with the likes of Moses and Abraham, and
also to be the person on the planet with the highest possible
authority to speak for God. To propose that such a person leading
such an organization and talking directly to such a Being would even
need to resort to deliberate misrepresentation, much less condone it,
calls to question his quite extraordinary claims.
> However, some things may really appear to
> be factually correct to some parties while at the same time seeming to
> other parties to be factually incorrect.
That issue was specifically addressed in Dr. Tam's testimony. He
attempted to make the case that he didn't know he was distributing bad
information because he had no reason to suspect that the information
he'd been given to distribute was factually incorrect. It wasn't very
convincing.
> That may partly depend on the
> access to information, the choice of sources of information, and of
> course the subjective evaluation of the information as to its factual
> accuracy.
That's one of the things that makes this case so very interesting to
me. Lawyers on both sides of the trial spent a lot of time dealing
with it.
> > The LDS Church played a
> > leading role in supporting the Yes on 8 campaign, and actively
> > organized its efforts.
>
> I really have no first hand knowledge on this point. I would suppose
> that other groups and organizations had at least some part in the
> organization of the efforts of the campaign.
The Catholic and LDS churches were the two most widely recognized
proponents, and arguably the most significant in terms of influence
and actual participation, but there were many many others. I like
this string of factoids from Wikipedia:
"About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came
from Utah, over three times more than any other state.[55]
ProtectMarriage, the official proponents of Proposition 8, estimate
that about half the donations they received came from LDS sources, and
that "eighty to ninety percent" of the early volunteers going door-to-
door were LDS.[56] The LDS Church produced and broadcast to its
congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and
describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as
grassroots efforts to support the Proposition.[57]" --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8#Proponents
The extent that the LDS church is receiving negative attention from
opponents of Prop. 8 seems consistent with its level of support of
same.
> > In addition, the LDS Church aggressively
> > encouraged its members in California to contribute their own time and
> > money to support the campaign.
>
> Again, I have no direct knowledge. I do not live in California. It is
> possible that this was exactly as stated by you, of course. It is also
> possible that your understanding is colored a bit by your preference
> regarding the outcome, isn't it?
Oh, absolutely. But I have tried to be careful to check my bias
against the actual evidence and testimonies in the case itself. To
that end, I have read the entire testimonies of both of the
*defendants'* witnesses in Perry v. Schwarzenegger to be sure that I
understood as much the defendants' position as I could. For the same
reason, I carefully considered the defense's cross-examination of two
of the plaintiffs' witnesses.
Do still have a bias? It would be hard to argue that I don't, but I
have taken some care to make sure that my opinion is as informed as
possible.
> >To the extent that the LDS Church
> > knowingly disseminated false information to its members and the
> > general public during the course of the campaign, and continues to do
> > so, I strongly condemn its leadership.
>
> Condemn is a bit stronger word than I would use, but to the extent
> that the Church, as directed by its General Authorities disseminated
> and/or disseminates false information, I also strongly criticize those
> Authorites.
Condemn is a pretty strong word. I would consider using a different
word depending on the audience. For instance, if I were talking to my
devout LDS sister about this issue I probably wouldn't use it for fear
of my life. But in this forum where tact is somewhat less of a
concern for me, I picked the word that best described my level of
criticism.
> > I am less inclined to so strongly condemn LDS volunteers in California
> > who did not play a significant role in formulating the message of the
> > campaign itself. I support the right of all citizens to mobilize and
> > campaign in support of social and political issues. Even though I
> > disagree with their position on this issue, I respect their
> > willingness to act on their beliefs and mobilize to action.
>
> No comment.
No reply.
> > More significantly, the LDS Church leadership discourages its members
> > from questioning its authority, doctrines and beliefs. Its members
> > are a product of a culture that conditions them to hold their leaders
> > in the highest esteem and to trust their wisdom, knowledge and honesty
> > above any other institution and authority.
>
> Which particular culture would that be, considering the outside the
> United States membership as it exists today? I can see that your
> statement may be true for those who were "Born Under the Covenant" as
> 4th generation members in a heavily LDS area. Not otherwise without
> some of the supporting evidence that you later acknowledge is
> missing.
The culture I experienced growing up in the United States, and as an
adult in the same, before I renounced my belief and quit attending.
Regardless of where Mormons may reside, the highest levels of LDS
leadership do not take kindly to dissent.
> > As a formerly active LDS
> > member, it has been my experience that many committed and devout
> > Mormons become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own
> > leaders lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly
> > clear that lies were told.
>
> If that has happened to me, of course I would be incapable of
> recognizing it, now wouldn't I? <g>
I appreciate the joke and I am smiling.
In seriousness, it took me 20 years to figure it out, and another 5 to
make up my mind to leave. It was very very tough to allow my brain to
begin working properly and arrive at the decision to leave.
> > I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue of ethics and
> > morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> > apologists."
>
> Well, it seems so to him, apparently.
I don't wholly disagree with him either. I was trolling just a wee
tiny bit in an attempt to get some discussion started.
> > [Noting the clarification that your use of "apologist"
> > referred more to the likes of Nibley, FAIR, FARMS, not the "lay"
> > members I am describing in the previous paragraph.] I believe that
> > Mormonism is highly moral in that it represents a highly codified set
> > of beliefs, and that many of its members are highly ethical in that
> > seem to sincerely endeavor to live by its moral code.
>
> I see you recognize the word "moral" to be rather descriptive than
> prescriptive. Am I correct?
I recognize that all morals are defined by human beings, and in that
sense I am interested in how various individuals and groups arrive at
their set of moral codes I very much consider ethics from a
descriptive perspective. I do have strong opinions about how people
should and shouldn't act, and that could be described as prescriptive.
In the context of debating an issue such as gay marriage, and
specifically with respect to my argument with Duwayne about whether
LDS apologists care about morals and ethics, you're correct: I
recognize "moral" in the descriptive sense.
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > So, that's more along the lines of what I originally wanted to write.
> > It's still choppy, doesn't really flow all that well, needs some
> > supporting evidence and citations ... in other words it's not really a
> > proper note or essay, more of an outline for some things I have to say
> > about this issue.
>
> Very good.
>
> > I purposely distilled it by leaving out the references to Dr. Tam and
> > other editorial asides. Also, the first three paragraphs are what I
> > care most about here ... the 4th paragraph is the "dig" to get people
> > talking. Though any hope of attracting LDS apologists to the
> > discussion in this forum is probably a vain one ... a fact that I'm
> > lamenting a great deal at present. I thought about leaving it out of
> > this post altogether.
>
> Why would that be?
Because I think the first three paragraphs stand pretty well on their
own. Introducing the topic of ethics for the sake of discussing
ethics adds an element of abstraction that I'm not sure contributes to
the main point of this thread.
> > I need to cut this short tonight, which is unfortunate. I want to
> > take up some of other things in your latest response, particularly the
> > discussion about Dawkins, but also some others.
>
> > Until next time,
> >Xan
>
> > <snip to end>
>
> I have a son who thinks Richard Dawkins is brilliant. Of course he and
> I disagree on several things. He thinks President Obama is great as
> well, I think, or at least he pretended to a year or so ago.
The more you disagree with someone, the dumber they get.
Thanks again for your comments.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<b53f2f1b-8938-4e9e...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 5:51=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <b5e0331d-30f7-40f8-9c19-d25e44608...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,XanDu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 10:08=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3D3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.c=
> om>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3D3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wr=
> ote:
> >
> > > > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability=
> of =3D
> > > sayn=3D3D
> > > > > g
> > > > > > > anything important. <G>
> >
> > > > > > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing Mormo=
> ns,"
> > > > > > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
> >
> > > > > > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the evidence
> > > > > > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" can d=
> o
> > > > > > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important."
> >
> > > > > > Here's the link to that story, again:
> >
> > > > > >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-e=
> ffor=3D
> > > t/
> >
> > > > > > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is that =
> the
> > > > > > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
> > > > > > Mormon apologists. =3D3DA0It doesn't seem to matter at all to "Yo=
> u" and
> > > > > > Fuller that their church lied. =3D3DA0That doesn't seem to bother=
> them =3D
> > > at
> > > > > > all. =3D3DA0Rather, it seems the most important thing for "You" a=
> nd Ful=3D
> > > ler
> > > > > > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if the=
> y
> > > > > > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
> >
> > > > > > DuwayneAnderson
> > > > > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > > > > > science"
> > > > > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > > > > I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning for
> > > > > posting something on-topic and 2) you Duwayne for continuing to fig=
> ht
> > > > > the good fight.
> >
> > > > > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues t=
> o
> > > > > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watersh=
> ed
> > > > > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> > > > > continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
> > > > > losing battle. =3DA0And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
> >
> > > > > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too man=
> y
> > > > > times to count.
> >
> > > > =3D95 =3DA0"... We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world=
> , the
> > > > cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character =
> that
> > > > you can mention."
> > > > --- =3DA0 Brigham Young
> >
> > > > --
> > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > In the Wild Wild West, these were talents to be admired.
> >
> > > It's really just you and Duwayne holding the fort these days isn't
> > > it.
> >
> > > -Xan
> >
> > ** =A0It's true that there are few who still do. =A0However, John Manning
> > contributes from time to time. =A0
>
> I see that. I do wish he'd cut back on the OT stuff though, it only
> makes the signal to noise ratio worse.
>
> > Since there is no possible way to defend a
> > prophet of God who got caught boning his wife's 16-yr old maid, perhaps
> > the one true church has come to its senses and is presently encouraging
> > TBMs to stop posting here?
>
> In all seriousness, that's probably the best explanation I've heard so
> far.
>
** but even if it is true we are unlikely to find any offical letter
confirming such a move.
�R.L.Measures
<a2344508-b8d1-485f...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:35=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 10:19=A0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 17, 10:08=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com=
> >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrot=
> e:
> >
> > > > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability=
> of sayn=3D
> > > > > g
> > > > > > > anything important. <G>
> >
> > > > > > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing Mormo=
> ns,"
> > > > > > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
> >
> > > > > > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the evidence
> > > > > > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" can d=
> o
> > > > > > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important."
> >
> > > > > > Here's the link to that story, again:
> >
> > > > > >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-e=
> ffort/
> >
> > > > > > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is that =
> the
> > > > > > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
> > > > > > Mormon apologists. =3DA0It doesn't seem to matter at all to "You"=
> and
> > > > > > Fuller that their church lied. =3DA0That doesn't seem to bother t=
> hem at
> > > > > > all. =3DA0Rather, it seems the most important thing for "You" and=
> Fuller
> > > > > > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if the=
> y
> > > > > > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
> >
> > > > > > DuwayneAnderson
> > > > > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > > > > > science"
> > > > > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > > > > I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning for
> > > > > posting something on-topic and 2) youDuwaynefor continuing to fight
> > > > > the good fight.
> >
> > > > > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues t=
> o
> > > > > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watersh=
> ed
> > > > > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> > > > > continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
> > > > > losing battle. =A0And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
> >
> > > > > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too man=
> y
> > > > > times to count.
> >
> > > > =95 =A0"... We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, th=
> e
> > > > cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character =
> that
> > > > you can mention."
> > > > --- =A0 Brigham Young
> >
> > > > --
> > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > In the Wild Wild West, these were talents to be admired.
> >
> > > It's really just you andDuwayneholding the fort these days isn't
> > > it.
> >
> > > -Xan
> >
> > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
> > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> > unconditionally condemn genocide
** I don't condemn anything because it's silly lip-service.
> (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> > gays (I don't).
** I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whether
they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
consenting beastiality. .
>
> I read a bit of the genocide thread. Seems like that was a while
> ago. I suppose the "aunties" inability to get their talking points
> straight makes the TBM's that much more cozy. But it is as it should
> be.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Jimbo
> In article
> Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 12:37 pm, You <y...@shadow.orgs> wrote:
> > > In article <YK2dnYsibOdkH8XWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdn...@giganews.com>,
> > > John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > The Mormon church reportedly held a teleconference call with all but two
> > > > of the 161 Mormon leaders in California, telling them to urge
> > > > churchgoers to donate $30 each to the effort to end gay marriage in
> > > > California, which had been effectively legalized by a state court ruling
> > > > earlier in 2008.
>
> > > Now here is that Eminent Religious Scholar Johnnie-Boy Manning putting
> > > forth his Total Speculation of some theoretical Teleconference that may
> > > or may not have taken place, as FACT... Where are your FACTS Johnnie,
> > > Dates, Times, Phone Numbers, Names of actual Persons Involved????
> > > Inquiring Minds want to Know.... Or are you just blowing smoke, and
> > > hiding behind mirrors, as usual....
>
> > According to evidence submitted at trial, one key email between
> > officials of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Proposition 8
> > campaign read in part:
>
> > "With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from
> > campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to
> > provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to
> > show that church is directly involved."
>
> >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
>
> > So there you have it, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
> > explaining how they planned to lie.
>
> > <snip to end>
>
> > Duwayne Anderson
> > science"
>
> Oh now we got another Dufus, standing up for that Eminent Religious
> Scholar Johnnie-Boy Manning, but he doesn't present ANY FACTS
Actually, he did.
Jimbo
> In article
>
> > > standing up for that Eminent Religious
> > > Scholar Johnnie-Boy Manning,
>
>
> > > but he doesn't present ANY FACTS,
>
> > They were in the hyperlink you ignored.
>
> > According to evidence submitted at trial, one key email between
> > officials of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Proposition 8
> > will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead
> > so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as
> > not to show that church is directly involved."
>
> >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
>
> > So there you have it, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
> > explaining how they planned to lie.
>
> > > this supposed Teleconference.... that supposedly took place... Where are
> > > the Names, Phone Numbers, you know... The FACTS.... Just another loser,
> > > with nothing but HOT AIR...... You need to wash that BIG Red "L" off
> > > your forehead, Dwayne... It is a dead giveaway.....
>
> > The LDS Church really should be ashamed of itself -- and a lot of its
> > members, too.
>
> > Duwayne Anderson
> > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > science"
> >http://www.google.com/profiles/DuwayneAnderson
>
Do you have any facts that contradicts the facts that the news story
presented?
Jimbo
> In article
> Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The origin of the email was presented in court, as well as it's
> > contents. And the defense didn't question the accuracy of the origin,
> > either. Here's the story:
>
> >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-effort/
>
> > Why are you defending people that conspired to lie? Lying is against
> > the law of god, you know. It seems you have a higher allegiance to
> > your church than to morality.
>
>
> > Duwayne Anderson
>
Your denial is getting ridiculous.
�R.L.Measures
<22100dec-fc90-4442...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:25=A0am, Curmugeon <gfuller1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will make a few comments and hope they will be welcome. I do not
> > have well formed comments, since I am not as interested as some others
> > are, but will comment anyway. My comments will be interspersed in what
> > follows.I will also make some snippage of what is of little or no
> > interest or at least not related to what I want to say.
>
> All comments are welcome. And while well formed, and well informed,
> comments are my favorite kind, discussion of any kind is always good.
>
> > On Feb 19, 11:31=A0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 19, 10:38=A0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Feb 18, 5:24=A0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 18, 12:08=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com=
> >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 9:59 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > > Since we've been debating here I've rethought my original arguments.
> > > Some weren't fully formed and some were not clearly written. =A0I
> > > appreciate your feedback. I want to briefly reformulate my arguments
> > > in response to the discussion we've been having. =A0Here goes.
> >
> > > --------------------------------------
> >
> > > The proponents of Prop. 8 made factually incorrect public statements
> > > over their campaign to pass the initiative. =A0
> >
> > I have no doubt that this is true, merely because that seems to be the
> > nature of political debate.
>
> I make the same assumption for the same reasons. However, the LDS
> Church holds itself to an extremely high standard of honesty. ... ... ...
** "We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, the cunningest
and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character that you can
mention."
--- Brigham Young
Bret Ripley
Or at least cut out the cross-posting. Some of the OT stuff can actually
make good fodder for topical discussion, but it looks like most of the
noise is from folks from other groups and who simply aren't interested in
discussing Mormonism.
>> Since there is no possible way to defend a
>> prophet of God who got caught boning his wife's 16-yr old maid, perhaps
>> the one true church has come to its senses and is presently encouraging
>> TBMs to stop posting here?
>
> In all seriousness, that's probably the best explanation I've heard so
> far.
Is it OK to admit that I miss Guy Briggs? We seldom agreed on anything, but
he always seemed game for a good dust up of a discussion. I like that in a
person.
Bret
John Manning
Other than new news or developments from the "one true church," I think
all its horse shit background basis has been hashed and re-hashed over
and over and over again here, and there really just isn't much more left
to say.
I personally think that anyone who's still involved in that weird,
creepy social club for the god that Joe Smith invented - after having
been on this forum for any extended period of time in the earlier days -
has something very seriously wrong with them.
Xan Du
Good point.
> >> Since there is no possible way to defend a
> >> prophet of God who got caught boning his wife's 16-yr old maid, perhaps
> >> the one true church has come to its senses and is presently encouraging
> >> TBMs to stop posting here?
>
> > In all seriousness, that's probably the best explanation I've heard so
> > far.
>
> Is it OK to admit that I miss Guy Briggs? We seldom agreed on anything, but
> he always seemed game for a good dust up of a discussion. I like that in a
> person.
>
> Bret
Definitely OK to miss Guy Briggs. I'd add Woody Brison to that list
for the same reason, though I note he's currently quite active over at
ARMF. Even though I hardly ever agreed with them (and that's putting
it mildly) I did in fact appreciate their willingness to put up a good
fight.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
** However, LdSism is quite definitely connected with Neo-con politics
and the gay "marriage" donnybrook .
>
> >> Since there is no possible way to defend a
> >> prophet of God who got caught boning his wife's 16-yr old maid, perhaps
> >> the one true church has come to its senses and is presently encouraging
> >> TBMs to stop posting here?
> >
> > In all seriousness, that's probably the best explanation I've heard so
> > far.
>
> Is it OK to admit that I miss Guy Briggs?
** I enjoyed the Wise Guy too - but no man can long continue to spur a
dead horse.
>We seldom agreed on anything, but
> he always seemed game for a good dust up of a discussion. I like that in a
> person.
** good point Bret..
Bret Ripley
Woody /occasionally/ peeks in here. Unfortunately, he doesn't see fit to
stick around for any length of time. It's not like the old days when he
used to engage in discussions here: he now seems content to address a point
and then get out of Dodge.
Bret
Xan Du
>
> >> On Feb 18, 5:51 am, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <b5e0331d-30f7-40f8-9c19-d25e44608...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,XanDu
>
> >>> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 17, 10:08=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 3, 9:24=3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 2, 8:04=3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >>>> It's really just you and Duwayne holding the fort these days isn't
> >>>> it.
> >>>> -Xan
> >>> ** It's true that there are few who still do. However, John Manning
> >>> contributes from time to time.
> >> I see that. I do wish he'd cut back on the OT stuff though, it only
> >> makes the signal to noise ratio worse.
>
> > Or at least cut out the cross-posting. Some of the OT stuff can actually
> > make good fodder for topical discussion, but it looks like most of the
> > noise is from folks from other groups and who simply aren't interested in
> > discussing Mormonism.
>
> Other than new news or developments from the "one true church," I think
> all its horse shit background basis has been hashed and re-hashed over
> and over and over again here, and there really just isn't much more left
> to say.
You certainly aren't the first ARM participant to make that argument.
When I first arrived on the scene in 2001 and began to engage Charles
Dowis on the subject of Mesoamerican horses and Halplogroup X, he
responded with a "yawn" and "this has already been discussed many
times, check the the prior postings." There was some fairness to his
rebuke and I did just as he suggested.
But there's a big difference between reading someone elses'
conversations and engaging in a conversation. I found Dowis'
dismissive attitude off-putting. Had it not been for the likes of LDS
apologists like Woody and Guy who were willing to rehash the same old
issues with the fresh-faced new kid I would have lost interest very
quickly, and that would have been a shame. For then I never would
have befriended people like you, Rich Measures, Duwayne Anderson,
Steve Lowther, Lee Paulson, Agkistrodon, Don Marchant, Randy Jordan,
Helen, Mike W and a litany of other critics who in various ways nudged
and nurtured me out of a very dark and sticky morass of
disinformation, guilt and self-doubt.
Many ARM critics have gone on record wondering if the endlessly-
cycling rehashings here actually ever help anyone. I cite myself as
an example of someone it *did* help in very very profound and valuable
ways.
You're an old hand here, and your weariness is understandable. I
myself burned out after three or so years of it, I get it. My reasons
for coming back after a long sabbatical are probably more selfish than
altruistic, as is my wish that you'd be more on-topic than off. But
the altruism is there: this is a place that can help people if it's
being used according to its chartered purpose.
My appeal may be moot -- Usenet does seem to be dying. There are
blogs and social networks and other discussion forums where truth-
seekers can go. But this place is still unique and useful even in the
shadow of its former glory. Why hasten its death by littering it with
irrelevant content just because you're personally bored?
> I personally think that anyone who's still involved in that weird,
> creepy social club for the god that Joe Smith invented - after having
> been on this forum for any extended period of time in the earlier days -
> has something very seriously wrong with them.
I made a similar argument myself once. Probably several times. The
consistent answer was that it's not about helping the ones beyond
help. I believed it and I tried to live by it. I'm doing the same
now.
-Xan
PS - I need to give credit where credit is due. You *did* start this
thread; it was on point and appreciated. It gave me a reason to dip
back into the conversation, so I think some positive reinforcement is
an order. Thanks for your original post.
<snip to end>
Xan Du
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:38:22 -0800 (PST),XanDu wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 11:42 am, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:25:49 -0800 (PST),XanDu wrote:
> >>> On Feb 18, 5:51 am, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <b5e0331d-30f7-40f8-9c19-d25e44608...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,XanDu
>
> >>>> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 17, 10:08=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>>>> > In article
> >>>>> > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>>>> > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> > > wrote:
> >>>>> > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
<el sniperoo>
> >> Is it OK to admit that I miss Guy Briggs? We seldom agreed on anything, but
> >> he always seemed game for a good dust up of a discussion. I like that in a
> >> person.
>
> >> Bret
>
> > Definitely OK to miss Guy Briggs. I'd add Woody Brison to that list
> > for the same reason, though I note he's currently quite active over at
> > ARMF. Even though I hardly ever agreed with them (and that's putting
> > it mildly) I did in fact appreciate their willingness to put up a good
> > fight.
>
> > -Xan
>
> Woody /occasionally/ peeks in here. Unfortunately, he doesn't see fit to
> stick around for any length of time. It's not like the old days when he
> used to engage in discussions here: he now seems content to address a point
> and then get out of Dodge.
>
> Bret
I'm sure he has his reasons, and I'm sure that I wouldn't blame him
for a lot of them. But it is unfortunate nonetheless.
-Xan
John Manning
I appreciate your thorough, interesting and well-founded comments, Xan.
Made me smile. I've occasionally wondered what had become of you since
your 'departure' quite some time ago.
> <snip to end>
Xan Du
>
>
>
>
>
> Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 5:51=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b5e0331d-30f7-40f8-9c19-d25e44608...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,XanDu
>
> > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 10:08=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3D3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.c=
> > om>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3D3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wr=
> > ote:
<snip>
> > > Since there is no possible way to defend a
> > > prophet of God who got caught boning his wife's 16-yr old maid, perhaps
> > > the one true church has come to its senses and is presently encouraging
> > > TBMs to stop posting here?
>
> > In all seriousness, that's probably the best explanation I've heard so
> > far.
>
> ** but even if it is true we are unlikely to find any offical letter
> confirming such a move.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
And I would not bet against you.
-Xan
Gene Fuller
".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2002100...@10.0.1.7...
> In article
> <a2344508-b8d1-485f...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Xan
> Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 18, 12:35=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Feb 17, 10:19=A0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Snip
>> > > It's really just you andDuwayneholding the fort these days isn't
>> > > it.
>> >
>> > > -Xan
>> >
>> > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
>> > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
>> > unconditionally condemn genocide
>
> ** I don't condemn anything because it's silly lip-service.
I agree with R.L. on this point.
>> (I do) and he opposes marriage for
>> > gays (I don't).
>
> ** I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whether
> they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> consenting beastiality. .
And that is essentially how I see it. I really have no personal concern in
what relationships people may form among themselves. If it develops that
actions that individuals take conflict with my rights as a man, then I may
be concerned but that is not something for broad legislation.
Remainder snipped.
I leave the cross posting but do not intend to be a presence on ARM.
Gene
Xan Du
> Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 12:35=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 10:19=A0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 10:08=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com=
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrot=
> > e:
<snip>
> > > > It's really just you andDuwayneholding the fort these days isn't
> > > > it.
>
> > > > -Xan
>
> > > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
> > > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> > > unconditionally condemn genocide
>
> ** I don't condemn anything because it's silly lip-service.
Ok, I'm up to speed on that one.
<darts ninja-like out of the room>
> > (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> > > gays (I don't).
>
> ** I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whether
> they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> consenting beastiality.
Ok, I'm up to speed on that one too. My but you boys have been having
fun.
Back in 2001 when Prop. 22 was on the ballot, my first reaction to the
Mormons' position was that it was silly to be caught up over the
meaning of the word "marriage". But then I realized that the actual
aim of the LDS church was to preserve the stigma of homosexuality
through the use of a positive political message. "Defend marriage"
plays a lot better politically than "homosexuality is a sin."
If I understand your position correctly Rich, you support California's
domestic partnership laws, which allow gays and lesbians to enjoy the
same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples. I used to think
that this represented a good compromise. But what I believe now is
that this compromise still perpetuates the notion that gays and
lesbians are separate class of people that don't deserve the exact
same rights as heterosexuals.
So, I'm really struggling with your position here. I'm trying to
understand why you would think that any person who wanted to enjoy the
legal and societal benefits of getting married is whimsical, and why
protecting the definition of a word is more important than treating
all people equally under the law. To use one of your favorite words,
this seems a little bizarre. What am I missing?
-Xan
Xan Du
> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
>
> news:r-2002100...@10.0.1.7...
>
> > In article
> > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 18, 12:35=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Feb 17, 10:19=A0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> >> > > It's really just you andDuwayneholding the fort these days isn't
> >> > > it.
>
> >> > > -Xan
>
> >> > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
> >> > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> >> > unconditionally condemn genocide
>
> > ** I don't condemn anything because it's silly lip-service.
>
> I agree with R.L. on this point.
>
> >> (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> >> > gays (I don't).
>
> > ** I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whether
> > they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> > consenting beastiality. .
>
> And that is essentially how I see it. I really have no personal concern in
> what relationships people may form among themselves.
Marriage is not just relationship that two people formed "among
themselves." It's a legally defined status that imparts benefits to
those who enter into it. How is a person less important than a word?
> If it develops that
> actions that individuals take conflict with my rights as a man, then I may
> be concerned but that is not something for broad legislation.
I don't see how that is relevant, unless you are saying that allowing
gays and lesbians to get married somehow conflicts with your own
rights. But I shouldn't put words in your mouth. Can you clarify
your point?
> Remainder snipped.
>
> I leave the cross posting but do not intend to be a presence on ARM.
>
> Gene
Fair 'nuff.
-Xan
Xan Du
Some things never change. I'm smiling too.
I've been enjoying a life unfettered by the exingencies of sustaining
the Bretheren, handing over 10% of my well-earned (and increasingly
hard to obtain) cash to an organization that spends it repressing
peoples' civil rights, and feeling guilty for not having a
"testimony." Sometimes I'm not happy, but I'm definitely not as sad.
I've had a few adventures traveling around the country and overseas
for work and pleasure. You know, a life. Who knew?
-Xan
Curmugeon
> On Feb 20, 7:10 pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Snip
R.L. said
> > > ** I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whether
> > > they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> > > consenting beastiality. .
>
> > And that is essentially how I see it. I really have no personal concern in
> > what relationships people may form among themselves.
>
> Marriage is not just relationship that two people formed "among
> themselves." It's a legally defined status that imparts benefits to
> those who enter into it. How is a person less important than a word?
I am the one who has said here, I believe, that I do not see why a
government should be defining a status such as marriage. If we leave
out the idea of commandments and laws from God or gods or spirits or
whatever, then we have the concept that the ways of mankind have come
about partly by chance, maybe, partly from perceived economic
advantage, partly as a power play, etc. That would probably apply to
everything in life. Marriage of a man and a woman of women would have
come about in some cultures, at least, as a way to help insure the
survival of the species. "Coupling" of two men, or "coupling" of two
women could have some advantage in that way, probably, but apparently
the ancestors of most of us did not see it that way. With God out of
the picture, I think there never would have developed any idea of
giving particular advantages to married people.
> > If it develops that
> > actions that individuals take conflict with my rights as a man, then I may
> > be concerned but that is not something for broad legislation.
>
> I don't see how that is relevant, unless you are saying that allowing
> gays and lesbians to get married somehow conflicts with your own
> rights. But I shouldn't put words in your mouth. Can you clarify
> your point?
I am not saying that at all. I am saying from my own personal
perspective, homosexually oriented people (why do we need two words
for that such as "gays" and "lesbians"?) can do as they will without
any penalty from the government unless they are really causing damage
to someone. None have harmed me so far. My youngest son is married to
a woman whose oldest brother is in a committed relationship with a
man. The couple is homosexual and biracial, and aside from at least
one of them having an excessive drinking problem and one of them
having a severe money management problem, neither of which I suspect
to be related directly to gender identification, they are pleasant
enough people.
I words as plain as I know how to state them, it would please me if
the government at all levels did nothing to define a relationship
between any two or more people unless there was demonstrated harm
being done to someone.
Remainder snipped
Gene
Xan Du
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 5:24 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:08 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
<snip stuff already covered in my previous post>
> > > I marvel at the way religion has become the new justification. People
> > > seem to think that "faith" can make "stupid" into something else. We
> > > see religious folk wallowing in their "faith" as they use it to excuse
> > > everything from racism to intellectual dishonesty to lying, to praying
> > > for the death of a president, to belief in stupid, stupid, stupid
> > > things.
>
> > > But just because a person has "faith" in something doesn't mean it's
> > > not "stupid," and just because a person has "faith" in a thing doesn't
> > > mean it's not evil.
>
> > Religion a *new* justification? What about these OT scriptures we've
> > been quoting? The Inquisition? Crusades? Explain how religion is a
> > "new" justification. It seems inconsistent for you to say that.
>
> Point taken. It's not a "new" justification at all, from an
> historical POV. But it does seem to be "new" in a sense to
> contemporary American society. I don't think America was as open to
> using the "religion" excuse 50 years ago, quite to the extent that
> they are today.
I think I agree with that, and I think I understand why. In 1960,
religion was a much stronger institution in this country. More people
professed religious belief, and they attended more regularly. My
reading of it is that it was much more tightly interwoven in society
than now. Not that there weren't upsets and controversies: JFK's
Catholicism comes to mind. The prohibition of school prayer in 1963
by the Supreme Court is another one. (I had to look twice at that
date because I remember saying prayer in school in Utah as late as
1977.) But the major issues in the early part of the decade didn't
have significant religious overtones -- the Cold War fight against
communism (esp. the start of the Vietnam War, the Bay of Pigs fiasco
and the Cuban Missile Crisis). More to the point of the current
topic, the Civil Rights movement wasn't as sharply defined by
religious issues as today's same sex marriage movement is.
BUT ... "hippies" (used here with affection bordering upon reverence)
were on the march and things were changing. My reading is that the
Summer of Love in '67 pissed off a lot of a lot of church-goin' folk.
Carl Sagan got on TV and started promoting scientific rationalism and
peopole started feeling comfortable openly admitting their disbelief
in religion, etc.
So call this an agree. I see what you're saying. But I have one
question: you didn't break with Mormonism until 1995, correct? I
wonder if your perception of events as you lived them up to the
mid-90s isn't somewhat colored by the fact that you belonged to a
religion during that period?
<snip>
> > Maher and Dawkins both share the common belief that religion is really
> > a terrible thing for society: it justifies a lot of bad behavior,
> > doesn't encourage good thinking, is a mechanism for manipulation and
> > deceit, a tool used by one group to repress or eliminate other groups,
> > the list goes on. Before I began to follow Dawkins, listening to
> > Maher I would ask myself what would the world be like if there weren't
> > religion. And as I started to follow Dawikins (some reading, mostly
> > watching his lectures and book tour speeches online) I really started
> > to become fascinated with the same rhetorical question.
>
> For the record, I think Dawkins is spot on.
He makes a lot of sense to me as well.
> > As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins obviously preaches that humans
> > have evolved in accordance to the principles of Darwinian fitness.
> > Our brains and our bodies ... our behaviors are the way they are
> > because evolution selected out the genes that made us less fit, and
> > selected in the genes that made us a better fit. Extending that
> > argument to its logical conclusion, I submit the proposition that
> > religion is a product of evolution.
>
> Dawkins would agree.
I'm on the right track FINALLY.
> > If Dawkins were here, I would ask
> > him to explain that to me.
>
> You should read his books. He describes it in "The God Delusion."
>
> Basically, he points out that *many* evolved characteristics have
> primary and secondary causes. For example, the index finger on your
> right hand can be used to pull out small bugs in the fur of your
> mate. It can also be used to pick berries, pick up sticks, or pick
> your nose. It can be used to make tools, too. All those things are
> useful. But it can *also* be used to pull the trigger of a gun and
> blow your brains out; not useful at all (for survival). Still, on
> balance, the survival *advantages* outweigh the survival
> *disadvantages.*
>
> Dawkins suggests that religion is a secondary *disadvantage* that is
> attached to another effect that has (on balance) a greater survival
> *advantage.*
>
> He suggests that the primary evolutionary trait might be the tendency
> to believe and obey. This is an extremely important trait for young
> children, with high value for survival. Religion (in this view) is
> then seen as a secondary trait that is disadvantageous to the
> organism, even though (overall) the tendency to believe and obey is an
> advantageous trait.
That is seriously good stuff. I was going to get a copy
eventually ... I'm very highly motivated to do so now.
> > (If I weren't feeling lazy, I'd look it
> > up, he may have talked about it already.)
>
> Yeah. He did. Look, in your quest for knowledge there's just no
> substitute for reading books. And don't use those damned kindle
> things, either. Get one that's printed on acid free paper and write
> all over in the margins.
I don't read enough books. I'm a bit too spoiled by the instant
gratification and easily digested brevity of Wikipedia articles.
Another casualty of the Internet generation. But when I read a book,
I agree, nothing's better than ink on paper.
<snip>
> > > So while I would *never* minimize the culpability of the evil men that
> > > run/operate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'm
> > > unwilling to let the common members off the hook for spreading the
> > > lies those evil men told -- even *if* the stupid members were doing it
> > > out of religious sincerity.
>
> > I understand and respect that position. I'm being deliberately -- and
> > one might argue obtusely -- lenient with respect to the rank and file
> > as an experiment. To see how it feels and whether it works. One
> > thing I think about a lot is the culture of punishment in this
> > country, how and why we assign blame, and then what we do about it. I
> > think it's a real problem. When people get caught using illegal drugs
> > we throw them in jail, but when bankers make risky investments and
> > engage in predatory lending practices that lead to economic meltdown
> > we give them billions of dollars. Pardon my french, but that is
> > really fucked up.
>
> ----
>
> > To be perfectly honest, I'd like to see some Prop. 8 supporters get
> > punished.
>
> To be perfectly honest I think that would be *horrible.*
I left out some qualifiers.
> Standing up for civil rights means standing up for *everyone's* civil
> rights, including political opponents and the moron bearing his
> testimony in LDS sacrament meetings.
Actually, this is exactly why I have such a big problem with the LDS
church's position on Prop. 8. They want to deny one group's civil
rights on the basis of beliefs, the practice of which is a protected
civil right.
> Now, *lying* is something that should be punished.
The "some Prop. 8 supporters" I was referring to above were the lying
sorts of ones.
> The LDS Church
> should be stripped of its tax-exempt status for lying and breaking the
> law.
I'll provisionally agree. I need to do more study on full extent of
their culpability, and the extent to which the tax-exemption laws
apply to that.
> But neither the church nor it's stupid followers should be
> punished for expressing their opinions.
I was trying to make the same point in my original post in this
thread, but in attempting to be a little less confrontational I think
I flubbed it. So I agree.
<snip>
> > All I'm arguing is that I think it's ok to assume good faith when
> > people do bad things based on bad information. I try to condemn
> > actions and ideas before condemning people, not always successfully,
> > but I try because I think it's more constructive sometimes to do so.
>
> If that is all you are saying, then I tend to agree. I don't doubt
> that many of the Mormons who told lies were honestly just repeating
> the lies they'd been told by their evil leaders. However, I believe
> in personal responsibility and I think that the careless repetition of
> a lie (whether out of religious conviction or not) is *wrong.*
>
> I think people have an ethical obligation to get their facts straight
> before they go blabbering.
And I surely agree with that. But some lies are easier to prove than
others because some of facts in this case are strongly based on
empirical and some are not. Some of the "blabbering" that Prop. 8
supporters did was clearly dead wrong, some of it wasn't. It's these
sorts of gray areas, the "softer" facts, where my "sympathies" for
religious belief comes into play. I'm not trying to give anyone a
free pass here, I'm just trying to find a more nuanced critique than
to simply say that idiotic Mormons spouted a bunch of bullshit lies.
It would be against my own ethics for me to be such a reductionist.
And depending on the audience, I might not want to be so blunt.
> > > If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> > > genocide?
>
> > > If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> > > incest?
>
> > > If lies are justifiable on the basis of religious piety, how about
> > > praying for the president to be murdered?
>
> > No to allDuwayne, come ON.
>
> Good. So I conclude that lies are *not* justifiable on the basis of
> religious piety.
Right. But I'm trying to be careful whom I indict for lying, and how
I do it. Religious inculcation becomes a mitigating factor when
critiquing grassroots folk, and it all but disappears when talking
about Thomas S. Monson.
<snip>
> > I'm saying that understanding people's motivations from a position of
> > respect may be a useful way to try to change their behavior.
>
> I agree.
Hey, I got one right!
> > > > but I don't know if it
> > > > ever made it to the Federal level or not. Personally, I'd want the
> > > > law to protect the child, but it's a gnarly issue.
>
> > > Why is it "gnarly?"
>
> > Because I'm an advocate of the First Amendment right protecting the
> > right to practice religion.
>
> The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to "practice
> religion." Read it. It says Congress can't make laws respecting
> religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
I was referring to the free exercise clause.
> But a law that says "Parents must give their children
> proper medical care" is not a law about religion, it's a law about
> taking care of your kids.
Again I agree with you in principle. But it's not so clear cut in the
law. And since issues such as these are a central part of Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, I'm trying to understand the legal arguments. I'm
getting there.
> > I also think that people have a right to
> > raise their children as they see fit to do it, with qualifications of
> > course, but that is an important right.
>
> Suppose they "see fit" to raise them to the age of 14 and then cook
> them for dinner?
I don't think any Prop. 8 supporter, Mormon or not, ever intimated
that allowing gays and lesbians to get married would result in anyone
cooking their children for dinner.
Also see the "with qualifications" part of my statement. I think
cooking kids for dinner is bad, and that would be covered under
"qualifications".
> Obviously you wouldn't accept that. So why accept the idea that a
> parent can let their child die a horribly painful death from (for
> example) a burst appendix, without giving them proper medical
> attention, just because of their stupid religion?
>
> If you caused that much pain/suffering to a *cat* you'd go to jail.
> Why should a child have to face that sort of death simply because
> their parents are whacked-out morons drunk on superstition?
I'm not trying to debate my own moral stance on these scenarios you're
presenting. I don't think there is a debate, we 100% agree. What I
am trying to do is understand how the law has been applied to these
kind of situations, particularly ones that are relevant to Perry, so
that I can argue from a position of knowledge and understanding of the
law. It's the law that's "gnarly".
My personal moral code is fairly well established, save maybe for
issues related say to abortion as I mention below, and I'm reasonably
sure we agree on those points.
> > This issue gets "gnarly" when religious practice is seen to cause harm
> > to innocent and/or powerless people, particularly when the people
> > needing protection are the minor children of religious parents.
>
> You think it's gnarly because you seem to think religion trumps all
> other rights.
Nope, addressed above and hopefully put to bed.
> > I
> > reiterate that I think that protecting minors outweighs protecting the
> > adults' beliefs.
>
> Okay ... so you don't.
And I'm starting to find that the law doesn't always agree with me.
More reading ...
<snip>
> > The fact that they lied about things *is* important to me, and I don't
> > condone it. What they supported -- denial of clearly given
> > constitutional rights -- is the real wrong.
>
> Okay ... we don't differ too much here.
>
> > And my operating
> > principle here is that it's more constructive to address the actual
> > issues of the case rather than bang on the lies and bad faith in how
> > the Yes on 8 campaign was executed.
>
> One can do both.
Depending on one's goals and one's audience. I'm concentrating very
much on crafting an argument that might compel, say my family, to
support the rights of gays and lesbians to get married. I can
guarantee that indicting the LDS church for lying during Prop. 8 is
the surest way to end the conversation permanently, and possibly get
cheated out of dinner for the evening.
> > Again, this all comes back to my overarching sense that political
> > discourse in this country is for shit. It's largely based on ad
> > hominem smear tactics, accusations of bad faith and lying. The issues
> > themselves suffer for it, and I'm fucking tired of it.
>
> Good.
Later, Duwayne.
-Xan
<snip to end>
Xan Du
> On Feb 20, 9:15 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 7:10 pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> R.L. said
>
> > > > ** I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whether
> > > > they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> > > > consenting beastiality. .
>
> > > And that is essentially how I see it. I really have no personal concern in
> > > what relationships people may form among themselves.
>
> > Marriage is not just relationship that two people formed "among
> > themselves." It's a legally defined status that imparts benefits to
> > those who enter into it. How is a person less important than a word?
>
> I am the one who has said here, I believe, that I do not see why a
> government should be defining a status such as marriage.
Ok, I missed your earlier statements and misunderstood your argument.
Rich doesn't seem to be arguing the same point, and since you seemed
to be agreeing with him, I trotted out essentially the same argument I
used with him.
I have advanced the argument with my friends that the government
should get out of the "marriage" business altogether leaving religions
and individual citizens to apply that label to their own doctrines and
gods (or lack thereof) as they see fit. I'm talking about the word
itself. It has taken on religious significance, and I think a
compelling argument can be made on the basis of separation of church
and state that the word itself should not be used in the law itself.
Under this proposal, the legal concept of "marriage" would simply be
replaced with "civil union".
Mormonism is actually an interesting context in which to discuss this
in that LDS doctrine already explicitly defines the differece between
a civil marriage for "time" ('till death do you part) and the
spiritual marriage or "sealing" for "time and all Eternity". My
parents, for instance, were first married under civil authority for
"time," and then when my father had been a member for a year, they
went to the temple for the sealing ceremony, completing the full
marriage covenant from the perspective of LDS doctrine. I on the
other hand, was married and sealed in the temple in the same ceremony,
but when I separated and divorced I remained sealed. It wasn't until
my ex-wife wanted to remarry that the church sent me the paperwork to
"unseal" us.
It's probably not a practical idea from a law standpoint, given the
large body of state and federal laws containing the word "marriage"
and its derivatives, but it was interesting to think about and discuss
with my friends. It also probably wouldn't satisfy the LDS church.
Their agenda isn't really about marriage the word, it's about
maintaining the stigma of homosexuality and preventing the moral decay
of society. And very much about not letting their children the idea
that it's ok to be gay or lesbian.
> If we leave
> out the idea of commandments and laws from God or gods or spirits or
> whatever, then we have the concept that the ways of mankind have come
> about partly by chance, maybe, partly from perceived economic
> advantage, partly as a power play, etc. That would probably apply to
> everything in life. Marriage of a man and a woman of women would have
> come about in some cultures, at least, as a way to help insure the
> survival of the species. "Coupling" of two men, or "coupling" of two
> women could have some advantage in that way, probably, but apparently
> the ancestors of most of us did not see it that way. With God out of
> the picture, I think there never would have developed any idea of
> giving particular advantages to married people.
One argument I've heard from faithful LDS is that same sex marriages
would in fact endanger the survival of the species. Or variations on
that theme, and often in conjunction with the argument that
homosexualilty cannot be natural because God says it isn't, and never
would have designed that into us, and if evolution is true then how
did homosexuality evolve, etc. The problem with these type of
arguments is that they tend to focus on the procreative aspects of
human coupling and tend to ignore the benefits of caring for and
*raising* children jointly in a committed and stable marriage
relationship.
I guess that's somewhat of a strawman, I hope you don't object. The
point I'm trying to illustrate is that even in the absence of
supernatural beliefs in gods, and with all else being equal, the
concept of marriage probably would still arise due to the child
rearing benefits of having two people remain in a stable and committed
relationshp. This is the thing that really ensures the survival of
the species. Or more accurately, marriage relationshps tend to give
an evolutionary advantage to cultures that practice them because
offspring are more likely to live to be old enough to mate, are more
suitable mates themselves when they mature sexually, etc.
> > > If it develops that
> > > actions that individuals take conflict with my rights as a man, then I may
> > > be concerned but that is not something for broad legislation.
>
> > I don't see how that is relevant, unless you are saying that allowing
> > gays and lesbians to get married somehow conflicts with your own
> > rights. But I shouldn't put words in your mouth. Can you clarify
> > your point?
>
> I am not saying that at all.
Ok, I wasn't sure, just wanted to be clear. Again, you seemed to be
agreeing with Rich, and, well, I'm not sure what he's saying either.
This whole issue is rife with opportunity for people to talk over each
other, unfortunately.
> I am saying from my own personal
> perspective, homosexually oriented people (why do we need two words
> for that such as "gays" and "lesbians"?) can do as they will without
> any penalty from the government unless they are really causing damage
> to someone. None have harmed me so far. My youngest son is married to
> a woman whose oldest brother is in a committed relationship with a
> man. The couple is homosexual and biracial, and aside from at least
> one of them having an excessive drinking problem and one of them
> having a severe money management problem, neither of which I suspect
> to be related directly to gender identification, they are pleasant
> enough people.
Not everyone is as accepting as you are, obviously. This is a big
part of the problem.
> I words as plain as I know how to state them, it would please me if
> the government at all levels did nothing to define a relationship
> between any two or more people unless there was demonstrated harm
> being done to someone.
Ok, I think I'm with you. So long as no one gets harmed, any number
of people can form a legally binding relationship, regardless of
sexual orientation, and you don't care what that's called.
I totally agree with that, except for the part about the polyamory.
Whole different ball of wax. I would support it from a purely civil
liberties standpoint, and I certainly don't have any religious
objections to it, but there are some issues I have with that in terms
of potential harm it could do to folks.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<d41addf0-1253-4f7c...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Xan Du
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:58=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <b53f2f1b-8938-4e9e-b5fd-6367d58c2...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,Xan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 5:51=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b5e0331d-30f7-40f8-9c19-d25e44608...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,Xa=
> nDu
> >
> > > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 17, 10:08=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R.L.Measures) wro=
> te:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3D3D3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@g=
> mail.c=3D
> > > om>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3D3D3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.c=
> om> wr=3D
> > > ote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Since there is no possible way to defend a
> > > > prophet of God who got caught boning his wife's 16-yr old maid, perha=
> ps
> > > > the one true church has come to its senses and is presently encouragi=
> ng
> > > > TBMs to stop posting here?
> >
> > > In all seriousness, that's probably the best explanation I've heard so
> > > far.
> >
> > ** =A0but even if it is true we are unlikely to find any offical letter
> > confirming such a move.
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> And I would not bet against you.
>
> -Xan
** smart move
�R.L.Measures
<gene....@mchsi.com> wrote:
** ARM is seemingly drying up Gene.
�R.L.Measures
<a5c1cbc6-a687-4c41...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:07=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <a2344508-b8d1-485f-b5c6-f68b3cc8b...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,Xan
> > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 12:35=3DA0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 10:19=3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 17, 10:08=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3D3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gma=
> il.com=3D
> >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3D3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com=
> > wrot=3D
> > > e:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > It's really just you andDuwayneholding the fort these days isn't
> > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > -Xan
> >
> > > > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
> > > > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> > > > unconditionally condemn genocide
> >
> > ** =A0I don't condemn anything because it's silly lip-service.
>
> Ok, I'm up to speed on that one.
>
> <darts ninja-like out of the room>
>
> > > (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> > > > gays (I don't).
> >
> > ** =A0I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whethe=
> r
> > they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> > consenting beastiality.
>
> Ok, I'm up to speed on that one too. My but you boys have been having
> fun.
>
> Back in 2001 when Prop. 22 was on the ballot, my first reaction to the
> Mormons' position was that it was silly to be caught up over the
> meaning of the word "marriage". But then I realized that the actual
> aim of the LDS church was to preserve the stigma of homosexuality
> through the use of a positive political message. "Defend marriage"
> plays a lot better politically than "homosexuality is a sin."
>
*** indeed
> If I understand your position correctly Rich, you support California's
> domestic partnership laws, which allow gays and lesbians to enjoy the
> same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples.
** Correct
> I used to think
> that this represented a good compromise. But what I believe now is
> that this compromise still perpetuates the notion that gays and
> lesbians are separate class of people that don't deserve the exact
> same rights as heterosexuals.
** Exact same rights? . . Homosexuals are seeking the right to change the
definition of a 700-yr old word of French origin, Heterosecuals do not
have the right to change word definitions
>
> So, I'm really struggling with your position here. I'm trying to
> understand why you would think that any person who wanted to enjoy the
> legal and societal benefits of getting married
** I've been married 35-yrars. Benefits of being married? This is some
kind of joke right Xan?
> is whimsical, and why
> protecting the definition of a word is more important than treating
> all people equally under the law. To use one of your favorite words,
> this seems a little bizarre. What am I missing?
>
** that heteros do not have the right to alter definitions of words.
Gene Fuller
Snip
>> I leave the cross posting but do not intend to be a presence on ARM.
>>
>> Gene
>
> ** ARM is seemingly drying up Gene.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Rich, that is a difficult sentence to parse. Do you mean that ARM is having
a drying effect on me? I really have no enmity toward ARM, I can stay away
from it when I wish. But I would rather that you meant that the participants
or quality of participation is diminishing on ARM than that it is having a
drying effect on me. <G>
Gene
Gene Fuller
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. To demonstrate that fact, I once
again rush leaping in to support Rich once again on a single point where I
agree with him. Some, and I emphasize some, homosexually oriented human
beings are seeking a right that most , and I emphasize most, heterosexually
oriented human beings probably have never even thought about, to say nothing
of seeking. <BG>
Gene
Xan Du
> Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 5:07=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <a2344508-b8d1-485f-b5c6-f68b3cc8b...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,Xan
> > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 18, 12:35=3DA0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 17, 10:19=3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > If I understand your position correctly Rich, you support California's
> > domestic partnership laws, which allow gays and lesbians to enjoy the
> > same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples.
>
> ** Correct
I thought so, just making sure I'd interpreted your earlier comments
correctly.
> > I used to think
> > that this represented a good compromise. But what I believe now is
> > that this compromise still perpetuates the notion that gays and
> > lesbians are separate class of people that don't deserve the exact
> > same rights as heterosexuals.
>
> ** Exact same rights? . . Homosexuals are seeking the right to change the
> definition of a 700-yr old word of French origin, Heterosecuals do not
> have the right to change word definitions
From the French marier, from the Old English mariage, from the Latin
maritare (v. to marry) and the Latin maritus (n. husband). Who or
what gave any of those cultures speaking any of those languages the
"right" to create any of those words in the first place? And once
created, why must their meaning remain constant? If the English word
"marriage" was only 100 years old would you have a different opinion?
50 years? 10 years? Yesterday? What if the English word was based
on the Malay word "perkahwinan," would that make a difference?
Now, if your argument here is that since the majority of Californians
have in fact voted into law that "marriage" has a specific meaning,
and that it would be a bad precedent for democracy for the 9th Federal
Court to rule against the will of the people ... well I'd think that
was a pretty cogent argument. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't find
it bizarre. Certainly, the California Supreme Court would be on your
side.
So, what is it really, Rich? Claiming that *no* person, no one,
nobody, has the right to change the definition of a word just doesn't
get it for me. If that were so, we'd have no words at all. We'd
still be hitting our mates over the head with a club and dragging them
back to our cave.
But now that I mention it ...
> > So, I'm really struggling with your position here. I'm trying to
> > understand why you would think that any person who wanted to enjoy the
> > legal and societal benefits of getting married
>
> ** I've been married 35-yrars. Benefits of being married? This is some
> kind of joke rightXan?
Well, I have to laugh at that ... I was asking the same thing as I
wrote it. But you can't seriously be arguing that you've stayed
married for 35 years because it was a DISadvantage for you to do so.
> > is whimsical, and why
> > protecting the definition of a word is more important than treating
> > all people equally under the law. To use one of your favorite words,
> > this seems a little bizarre. What am I missing?
>
> ** that heteros do not have the right to alter definitions of words.
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
Only aliens from Mars do then? You're not giving me much to go on
here.
Cheers, Rich.
-Xan
Xan Du
> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
>
> news:r-2102101...@10.0.1.7...
> > In article
> > <a5c1cbc6-a687-4c41-a1b7-8ad34eeba...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,Xan
I am also afraid that I have rushed into a place where even the
Devil's Angels would fear to tread. But though I may fear, and though
I may disagree, what I mainly feel right now is a failure to
understand. Maybe I've missed something, maybe I'm just dense, maybe
Rich is withholding some nugget of wisdom or terrible truth. I keep
asking him to tell me what 2 + 2 equals, and he keeps telling me 5.
I'm flummoxed. Sure is a fun conversation though. I do find it
useful.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<gene....@mchsi.com> wrote:
> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> news:r-2102101...@10.0.1.7...
>
> Snip
>
> >> I leave the cross posting but do not intend to be a presence on ARM.
> >>
> >> Gene
> >
> > ** ARM is seemingly drying up Gene.
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
>
> Rich, that is a difficult sentence to parse. Do you mean that ARM is having
> a drying effect on me?
** No Gene. I meant that posting on a.r.m. is shrinking. A couple of
years ago a.r.m. had about the same post rate as the Roman Catholic NG,
a.r.c.r-c. - but lately a.r.m. has had about a tenth of the post rate of
a.r.c.r-c. Perhaps TBMs are growing weary of trying to defend their
philanderous prophet Smith? - or maybe the leaders of the one true church
have realized that it is not very likely to sell the idea that a guy who
diddled his prod in his wife's 16-yr old housemaid is a Prophet of God.
cheers
�R.L.Measures
<78f65d40-795c-4882...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:03=A0pm, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <a5c1cbc6-a687-4c41-a1b7-8ad34eeba...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,Xan
> > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 20, 5:07=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <a2344508-b8d1-485f-b5c6-f68b3cc8b...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,X=
> an
> > > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 18, 12:35=3D3DA0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail=
> .com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 10:19=3D3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > If I understand your position correctly Rich, you support California's
> > > domestic partnership laws, which allow gays and lesbians to enjoy the
> > > same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples.
> >
> > ** =A0Correct
>
> I thought so, just making sure I'd interpreted your earlier comments
> correctly.
>
> > > I used to think
> > > that this represented a good compromise. =A0But what I believe now is
> > > that this compromise still perpetuates the notion that gays and
> > > lesbians are separate class of people that don't deserve the exact
> > > same rights as heterosexuals.
> >
> > ** Exact same rights? . . Homosexuals are seeking the right to change the
> > definition of a 700-yr old word of French origin, =A0Heterosecuals do not
> > have the right to change word definitions
>
> From the French marier, from the Old English mariage, from the Latin
> maritare (v. to marry) and the Latin maritus (n. husband). Who or
> what gave any of those cultures speaking any of those languages the
> "right" to create any of those words in the first place?
** Creating a new word to describe something is not the issue, the
issue is attempting to change the extant definition of a word to satisfy
the whim of one minority group.
>And once
> created, why must their meaning remain constant?
** it doesn't, but meanings change through useage. Example: 1900AD -- a
"computer" was a person who worked in bank using a mechanical adding
machine.
>If the English word
> "marriage" was only 100 years old would you have a different opinion?
** If the non-hetero community wants to invent a word for a legal union
between two women or two guys, go for it, but attempting to hijack a word
that has long been used to describe a legal union between one man and one
women is unliely to be welcomed by the 90% or so of the people that are
not homosexual == which is why Prop 8 was approved by the CA electorate.
> 50 years? 10 years? Yesterday? What if the English word was based
> on the Malay word "perkahwinan," would that make a difference?
>
> Now, if your argument here is that since the majority of Californians
> have in fact voted into law that "marriage" has a specific meaning,
> and that it would be a bad precedent for democracy for the 9th Federal
> Court to rule against the will of the people ... well I'd think that
> was a pretty cogent argument. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't find
> it bizarre. Certainly, the California Supreme Court would be on your
> side.
>
> So, what is it really, Rich? Claiming that *no* person, no one,
> nobody, has the right to change the definition of a word just doesn't
> get it for me.
** Word useage is determined by all,
not by some noisy minority group that starts to bawl.
> If that were so, we'd have no words at all.
** Inventing New words is Not the subject Xan.
>We'd still be hitting our mates over the head with a club and dragging them
> back to our cave.
** I used to date a girl who was into that. She explained that as a
little girl she used to do things to get her father to hit her on her
posterior.
>
> But now that I mention it ...
>
> > > So, I'm really struggling with your position here. =A0I'm trying to
> > > understand why you would think that any person who wanted to enjoy the
> > > legal and societal benefits of getting married
> >
> > ** =A0I've been married 35-yrars. =A0Benefits of being married? =A0 This
> > is some kind of joke right Xan?
>
> Well, I have to laugh at that ... I was asking the same thing as I
> wrote it. But you can't seriously be arguing that you've stayed
> married for 35 years because it was a DISadvantage for you to do so.
** I'm still married because I made the extremely stupid mistake of
teaching her how to load and shoot a Remington Model 1100 shotgun before
we got married.
>
> > > is whimsical, and why
> > > protecting the definition of a word is more important than treating
> > > all people equally under the law. =A0To use one of your favorite words,
> > > this seems a little bizarre. =A0What am I missing?
> >
> > ** =A0that heteros do not have the right to alter definitions of words.
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> Only aliens from Mars do then?
** chortle
> You're not giving me much to go on
> here.
>
> Cheers, Rich.
>
later Xan
cheers
Bruce in alaska
wrote:
> ** I'm still married because I made the extremely stupid mistake of
> teaching her how to load and shoot a Remington Model 1100 shotgun before
> we got married.
Now there is a Statement from Brother Measures that "I" can relate to....
Before my wife and I got married, I introduced her to the Shooting
Sports, and soon after our marriage, I took her to purchase her own
Personal Firearm. We went to the local Gun Shop, and I had her handle
ALL the pistols in the place to see which one fit her hand, and seemed
most comfortable in her grip. turned out to be a .380 Llama. She then
proceeded to qualify with it at the Range and received her CCW Permit.
Over then next 40 years, she got a LOT better, and now shoots much
better with a Handgun than I ever could, even in on my best Day. She now
has a .357 Stainless Dan Wesson PistolPak, plus my S&W 429 44 Mag and I
can't outrun the lead, she could tag me with, should she decide to see
if I happened to be a BIT Light on my Feet. I can out shoot her with a
rifle, but I still can't get out of pistol range, alive... Makes one
VERY Respectful....
--
Bruce in alaska
add <path> after <fast> to reply
�R.L.Measures
<fa...@btpost.net> wrote:
** Guffaw. Thanks Bruce.
Gene Fuller
That could be, Rich, but it is not the reason that I don't go there. I have
no obligation to "defend" Joseph Smith or anyone else. People will believe
what they will believe. I stay away because I simply do not enjoy being
there. I really doubt that the leaders of the Church give a lot of thought
to ARM.
I venture back from time to time just to see what is happening and maybe I
even make a comment, which I then usually regret. But the main way I get
back there is to respond to something without noticing it is cross posted.
73, my friend,
Gene
Xan Du
> Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 5:03=A0pm, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <a5c1cbc6-a687-4c41-a1b7-8ad34eeba...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,Xan
> > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > an
> > > > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 18, 12:35=3D3DA0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail=
> > .com>
> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 10:19=3D3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > If I understand your position correctly Rich, you support California's
> > > > domestic partnership laws, which allow gays and lesbians to enjoy the
> > > > same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples.
>
>
> > I thought so, just making sure I'd interpreted your earlier comments
> > correctly.
>
> > > > I used to think
> > > > that this compromise still perpetuates the notion that gays and
> > > > lesbians are separate class of people that don't deserve the exact
> > > > same rights as heterosexuals.
>
> > > ** Exact same rights? . . Homosexuals are seeking the right to change the
> > > have the right to change word definitions
>
> > From the French marier, from the Old English mariage, from the Latin
> > maritare (v. to marry) and the Latin maritus (n. husband). Who or
> > what gave any of those cultures speaking any of those languages the
> > "right" to create any of those words in the first place?
>
> issue is attempting to change the extant definition of a word to satisfy
> the whim of one minority group.
>
> > created, why must their meaning remain constant?
>
> "computer" was a person who worked in bank using a mechanical adding
> machine.
A good point, very much agree, words *do* change through usage.
Dictionary editors then recognize the changed usage and update their
definitions. Miriam-Webster already includes same sex unions under
their definition of "marriage".
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to
marry
Date: 14th century
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-
sex marriage>
> >If the English word
> > "marriage" was only 100 years old would you have a different opinion?
>
> ** If the non-hetero community wants to invent a word for a legal union
> between two women or two guys, go for it, but attempting to hijack a word
> that has long been used to describe a legal union between one man and one
> women is unliely to be welcomed by the 90% or so of the people that are
> not homosexual == which is why Prop 8 was approved by the CA electorate.
Though I would normally side with the will of voters, sometimes it is
appropriate to override the will of the majority, especially in cases
where unconstitutionality exists, and/or when the rights of a of a
minority are being impinged. That's one reason why we have courts: to
provide a mechanism to counter the tendency of majorities to deny
equal rights to stigmatized or politically disadvantaged minorities.
Having read much of the testimony in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I have
become convinced that this is one such instance. I didn't used to
think so. In fact, when the CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 8
constituted a proper amendment according to California law, I agreed
with their decision.
Ironically, now that this has gone to Federal court, I think it could
work out for the best in the long run once this case hits the US
Supreme Court ... assuming the Justices make the "right" decision.
> >We'd still be hitting our mates over the head with a club and dragging them
> > back to our cave.
>
> ** I used to date a girl who was into that. She explained that as a
> little girl she used to do things to get her father to hit her on her
> posterior.
Human behavior is indeed diverse.
> > But now that I mention it ...
>
> > > > So, I'm really struggling with your position here. =A0I'm trying to
> > > > understand why you would think that any person who wanted to enjoy the
> > > > legal and societal benefits of getting married
>
> > > ** =A0I've been married 35-yrars. =A0Benefits of being married? =A0 This
> > > is some kind of joke rightXan?
>
> > Well, I have to laugh at that ... I was asking the same thing as I
> > wrote it. But you can't seriously be arguing that you've stayed
> > married for 35 years because it was a DISadvantage for you to do so.
>
> ** I'm still married because I made the extremely stupid mistake of
> teaching her how to load and shoot a Remington Model 1100 shotgun before
> we got married.
I thought maybe she'd locked you in the garage with your ham equipment
and thrown away the key. That would have explained a great deal.
> > > > is whimsical, and why
> > > > protecting the definition of a word is more important than treating
> > > > all people equally under the law. =A0To use one of your favorite words,
> > > > this seems a little bizarre. =A0What am I missing?
>
> > > ** =A0that heteros do not have the right to alter definitions of words.
> > > --
> > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> > Only aliens from Mars do then?
>
> ** chortle
I do try to inject some laughs in between the serious stuff.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<gene....@mchsi.com> wrote:
** It wasn't him - it was his son Joseph Smith, Junior who got caught in
flagrante delicto with the wife's maid.
>or anyone else. People will believe
> what they will believe. I stay away because I simply do not enjoy being
> there. I really doubt that the leaders of the Church give a lot of thought
> to ARM.
** The Internet can not be ignored. It was very probably the spark that
caused the 2002 altar-boy explosion in the Roman Catholic Church.
>
> I venture back from time to time just to see what is happening and maybe I
> even make a comment, which I then usually regret. But the main way I get
> back there is to respond to something without noticing it is cross posted.
** I snag stuff that way too Gene.
>
> 73, my friend,
>
> Gene
cheers friend.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > cheers
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<8e50083c-eacf-467a...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 8:48=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <78f65d40-795c-4882-8bb5-2132b7378...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,Xan
> > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 21, 5:03=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <a5c1cbc6-a687-4c41-a1b7-8ad34eeba...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,X=
> an
> > > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 20, 5:07=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R.L.Measures) wrot=
> e:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <a2344508-b8d1-485f-b5c6-f68b3cc8b...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.co=
> m>,X=3D
> > > an
> > > > > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 18, 12:35=3D3D3DA0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...=
> @gmail=3D
> > > .com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 10:19=3D3D3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > If I understand your position correctly Rich, you support Californi=
> a's
> > > > > domestic partnership laws, which allow gays and lesbians to enjoy t=
> he
> > > > > same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0Correct
> >
> > > I thought so, just making sure I'd interpreted your earlier comments
> > > correctly.
> >
> > > > > I used to think
> > > > > that this represented a good compromise. =3DA0But what I believe no=
> w is
> > > > > that this compromise still perpetuates the notion that gays and
> > > > > lesbians are separate class of people that don't deserve the exact
> > > > > same rights as heterosexuals.
> >
> > > > ** Exact same rights? . . Homosexuals are seeking the right to change=
> the
> > > > definition of a 700-yr old word of French origin, =3DA0Heterosecuals =
> do not
> > > > have the right to change word definitions
> >
> > > From the French marier, from the Old English mariage, from the Latin
> > > maritare (v. to marry) and the Latin maritus (n. husband). =A0Who or
> > > what gave any of those cultures speaking any of those languages the
> > > "right" to create any of those words in the first place?
> >
> > =A0** =A0 Creating a new word to describe something is not the issue, the
> > issue is attempting to change the extant definition of a word to satisfy
> > the whim of one minority group.
> >
> > >And once
> > > created, why must their meaning remain constant? =A0
> >
> > ** =A0it doesn't, but meanings change through useage. =A0Example: =A01900=
> AD -- a
> > "computer" was a person who worked in bank using a mechanical adding
> > machine.
>
> A good point, very much agree, words *do* change through usage.
> Dictionary editors then recognize the changed usage and update their
> definitions. Miriam-Webster already includes same sex unions under
> their definition of "marriage".
>
> Main Entry: mar=B7riage
> Pronunciation: \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to
> marry
> Date: 14th century
>
> (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
> husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
> recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
> same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-
> sex marriage>
>
> > >If the English word
> > > "marriage" was only 100 years old would you have a different opinion?
> >
> > ** =A0If the non-hetero community wants to invent a word for a legal unio=
> n
> > between two women or two guys, go for it, but attempting to hijack a word
> > that has long been used to describe a legal union between one man and one
> > women is unliely to be welcomed by the 90% or so of the people that are
> > not homosexual =3D=3D which is why Prop 8 was approved by the CA electora=
> te.
>
> Though I would normally side with the will of voters, sometimes it is
> appropriate to override the will of the majority, especially in cases
> where unconstitutionality exists, and/or when the rights of a of a
> minority are being impinged. That's one reason why we have courts: to
> provide a mechanism to counter the tendency of majorities to deny
> equal rights to stigmatized or politically disadvantaged minorities.
>
> Having read much of the testimony in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I have
> become convinced that this is one such instance. I didn't used to
> think so. In fact, when the CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 8
> constituted a proper amendment according to California law, I agreed
> with their decision.
>
> Ironically, now that this has gone to Federal court, I think it could
> work out for the best in the long run once this case hits the US
> Supreme Court ... assuming the Justices make the "right" decision.
>
> > >We'd still be hitting our mates over the head with a club and dragging t=
> hem
> > > back to our cave.
> >
> > ** =A0I used to date a girl who was into that. =A0 She explained that as =
> a
> > little girl she used to do things to get her father to hit her on her
> > posterior.
>
> Human behavior is indeed diverse.
>
> > > But now that I mention it ...
> >
> > > > > So, I'm really struggling with your position here. =3DA0I'm trying =
> to
> > > > > understand why you would think that any person who wanted to enjoy =
> the
> > > > > legal and societal benefits of getting married
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0I've been married 35-yrars. =3DA0Benefits of being married? =
> =3DA0 This
> > > > is some kind of joke rightXan?
> >
> > > Well, I have to laugh at that ... I was asking the same thing as I
> > > wrote it. =A0But you can't seriously be arguing that you've stayed
> > > married for 35 years because it was a DISadvantage for you to do so.
> >
> > ** =A0I'm still married because I made the extremely stupid mistake of
> > teaching her how to load and shoot a Remington Model 1100 shotgun before
> > we got married. =A0
>
> I thought maybe she'd locked you in the garage with your ham equipment
> and thrown away the key. That would have explained a great deal.
>
> > > > > is whimsical, and why
> > > > > protecting the definition of a word is more important than treating
> > > > > all people equally under the law. =3DA0To use one of your favorite =
> words,
> > > > > this seems a little bizarre. =3DA0What am I missing?
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0that heteros do not have the right to alter definitions of wo=
> rds.
> > > > --
> > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > Only aliens from Mars do then?
> >
> > ** =A0chortle
>
> I do try to inject some laughs in between the serious stuff.
>
> -Xan
** laughter is the best medicine Xan.
Xan Du
> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
>
> > In article <re6dnfZhn95nZhzWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dn...@mchsi.com>, "Gene Fuller"
> > <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> >>news:r-2102101...@10.0.1.7...
>
> >> Snip
>
> >> >> I leave the cross posting but do not intend to be a presence on ARM.
>
> >> >> Gene
>
> >> > ** ARM is seemingly drying up Gene.
>
> >> > --
> >> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> >> Rich, that is a difficult sentence to parse. Do you mean that ARM is
> >> having
> >> a drying effect on me?
> > > ** No Gene. I meant that posting on a.r.m. is shrinking. A couple of
> > years ago a.r.m. had about the same post rate as the Roman Catholic NG,
> > a.r.c.r-c. - but lately a.r.m. has had about a tenth of the post rate of
> > a.r.c.r-c. Perhaps TBMs are growing weary of trying to defend their
> > philanderous prophet Smith? - or maybe the leaders of the one true church
> > have realized that it is not very likely to sell the idea that a guy who
> > diddled his prod in his wife's 16-yr old housemaid is a Prophet of God.
>
> That could be, Rich, but it is not the reason that I don't go there. I have
> no obligation to "defend" Joseph Smith or anyone else. People will believe
> what they will believe.
Belief is a really interesting thing. I've spent a fair amount of
time thinking and reading about how people form and adhere to beliefs
because I, uh believe, that it's important to understand how it is
that I myself determine the difference between reality and fantasy,
truth and falsehood. On ARM, and indeed any forum that addresses the
topic of belief itself, controversial issues, etc., the statement that
"people will believe what they believe" is difficult to dispute. But
I assert that many people are willing to change their belief when
presented with a reasonable argument, or compelling information ...
many more so than the collection of words in this forum would
demonstrate. In other words, the ability and willingness for people
to change their opinion or belief is underrepresented. People with
strong opinions and concrete beliefs tend to be the most willing to
air them. I think we'd have more thoughtful and interesting
conversations if we were all more vocal and honest about things that
we don't have such strong opinions of, were more willing to risk being
wrong. But I have been known to have overly-idealistic wants.
> I stay away because I simply do not enjoy being there.
ARM can be a rather unpleasant place, no doubt about it.
> I really doubt that the leaders of the Church give a lot of thought
> to ARM.
ARM specifically? Probably not. But I'm sure there's been discussion
about forums such as this in general.
> I venture back from time to time just to see what is happening and maybe I
> even make a comment, which I then usually regret. But the main way I get
> back there is to respond to something without noticing it is cross posted.
>
> 73, my friend,
>
> Gene
>
> > cheers
>
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
I hope you haven't regretted this particular foray. I certainly
appreciated your comments.
-Xan
sully
This thesis of yours certainly makes sense. ARM is amazing because
we can witness
people coming in with a set of beliefs and over time watch as some of
them completely
change their thinking.
But I find it as interesting to observe the people who will cling to
an absurd
belief in spite of the evidence and reason presented to them. There
is a lot of that.
I think reason is over-rated, I don't believe it has near the power
we'd like to believe it does. This is not strictly a left/right
thing. I had long arguments with relatives who were actually
convinced that Bush demolished the WTC. I found myself arguing with
them in the exact same fashion as I had to the reich wingers who deny
AGW, pointing them to the mainstream science articles about it.
My favorite was a rather polite long discussion with Diana over the
truth of the BOM, which seemed to result in having to redefine what
the word "true" means, factual vs meaningful.
My sense is that most of what we call "reason" is post-hoc. I read
some SA articles that suggested the same thing, our decisions are
often emotional, and reason steps in after the decision to make
rational sense of our belief. But since we cannot be congnizant of
a thought until we are aware of it, we suppose we came up with the
thought through the rational pattern.
Thus this combination of posthoc rationalization and word meaning best
explains to me how we can hold to a belief against reason and
evidence. We simply define a useful word that holds enough meanings
to satisfy the rational and the emotional need of the argument.
You can say then, ' I know the BOM is true' and express it in a
sincere honest way to someone else that suggests that everything in
the book is factual, while at the same time holding on to an
understanding in yourself that the book is meaningful to you.
Gene Fuller
"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e68dee27-88de-44e0...@g17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 22, 9:23 pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Snip
> That could be, Rich, but it is not the reason that I don't go there. I
> have
> no obligation to "defend" Joseph Smith or anyone else. People will believe
> what they will believe.
Belief is a really interesting thing. I've spent a fair amount of
time thinking and reading about how people form and adhere to beliefs
because I, uh believe, that it's important to understand how it is
that I myself determine the difference between reality and fantasy,
truth and falsehood. On ARM, and indeed any forum that addresses the
topic of belief itself, controversial issues, etc., the statement that
"people will believe what they believe" is difficult to dispute. But
I assert that many people are willing to change their belief when
presented with a reasonable argument, or compelling information ...
many more so than the collection of words in this forum would
demonstrate.
***** Of course you get no argument from me that (some) people are willing
to change their belief when presented with a (to them) reasonable argument,
or (what seems to them) compelling information. But they then believe what
they will believe, based on what then seems to them to be reasonable and/or
compelling. It is true that some people are ever changing their beliefs,
based on what seems at the time to them to be (to them) new and compelling
evidence that they have believed an error. I grew up going to church and
hearing the Bible quoted, it seems. I recall tidbits that I often think
apply to what is being discussed. When I hear people discussing social
change, as this discussion is, to me, I sometimes think that the following
from the Bible has an application,
Eph 4:14
14 That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
The following also comes to mind:
:
2 Tim 3:7
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
***** Ability to accept AND EVALUATE new information and perhaps reconcile
it with current beliefs, perhaps modify current beliefs to fit the new
information, is extremely important. So it seems to me that closed
mindedness is a great error. That is to have made up one's mind and to
refuse to hear at all, when new information is presented. But it is possible
to have a mind so open that truth falls out of it and is lost.
In other words, the ability and willingness for people
to change their opinion or belief is underrepresented. People with
strong opinions and concrete beliefs tend to be the most willing to
air them. I think we'd have more thoughtful and interesting
conversations if we were all more vocal and honest about things that
we don't have such strong opinions of, were more willing to risk being
wrong. But I have been known to have overly-idealistic wants.
***** Anyone who comes to a forum to state his doubts and lack of
understanding will certainly not fail to find many who will be willing to
tell him the rock bottom truth which he must believe or be thought an idiot!
> I stay away because I simply do not enjoy being there.
ARM can be a rather unpleasant place, no doubt about it.
> I really doubt that the leaders of the Church give a lot of thought
> to ARM.
ARM specifically? Probably not. But I'm sure there's been discussion
about forums such as this in general.
***** Of course. The leaders have mentioned many times that the Internet can
be used for much good, and the Church indeed seems to be attemtping to use
it in that way, but that it is also being used by the forces of evil to lead
us into even more error. You may recall that there must be opposition in all
things. (2 Nephi 2:11)
> I venture back from time to time just to see what is happening and maybe I
> even make a comment, which I then usually regret. But the main way I get
> back there is to respond to something without noticing it is cross posted.
>
> 73, my friend,
>
> Gene
>
> > cheers
>
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
I hope you haven't regretted this particular foray. I certainly
appreciated your comments.
-Xan
I did not venture back. ARMF was invaded and it took a couple of posts
before I even noticed the cross posting. When I saw you and realized that
you seemed to be a reasonable man, I thought it worth while to continue for
a time. I also have "known" Rich for a long time on fora such as this, and
aside from the fact that I think he believes some things that I don't <G> I
usually get along well with him. (Rich, not talking about you as if you are
not here. Not saying anything I would not say to you! <G>))
Gene
�R.L.Measures
<e68dee27-88de-44e0...@g17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:23=A0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> >
> > news:r-2202100...@10.0.1.7...
> > > In article <re6dnfZhn95nZhzWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dn...@mchsi.com>, "Gene Fuller"
> > > <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> ".R.L.Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> > >>news:r-2102101...@10.0.1.7...
> >
> > >> Snip
> >
> > >> >> I leave the cross posting but do not intend to be a presence on ARM=
> .
> >
> > >> >> Gene
> >
> > >> > ** =A0ARM is seemingly drying up Gene.
> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > >> Rich, that is a difficult sentence to parse. Do you mean that ARM is
> > >> having
> > >> a drying effect on me?
> > > > ** =A0No Gene. =A0I meant that posting on a.r.m. is shrinking. =A0A c=
> ouple of
> > > years ago a.r.m. had about the same post rate as the Roman Catholic NG,
> > > a.r.c.r-c. - but lately a.r.m. has had about a tenth of the post rate o=
> f
> > > a.r.c.r-c. =A0 Perhaps TBMs are growing weary of trying to defend their
> > > philanderous prophet Smith? =A0- or maybe the leaders of the one true c=
> hurch
> > > have realized that it is not very likely to sell the idea that a guy wh=
> o
> > > diddled his prod in his wife's 16-yr old housemaid is a Prophet of God.
> >
> > That could be, Rich, but it is not the reason that I don't go there. I ha=
> ve
> > no obligation to "defend" Joseph Smith or anyone else. People will believ=
** As I see it, ARM is semi-unique in that it's not censored and it's
about as far from a mutual admiration society as is possible. .
Xan Du
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
I keep that firmly in mind sir.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<6a91ece6-765a-4905...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:54=A0am, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <8e50083c-eacf-467a-ba49-06bb25c10...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,Xan
> > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 22, 8:48=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <78f65d40-795c-4882-8bb5-2132b7378...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,X=
> an
> > > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 21, 5:03=3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <a5c1cbc6-a687-4c41-a1b7-8ad34eeba...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.co=
> m>,X=3D
> > > an
> > > > > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 20, 5:07=3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D95R.L.Measur=
> es) wrot=3D
> > > e:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <a2344508-b8d1-485f-b5c6-f68b3cc8b...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroup=
> s.co=3D
> > > m>,X=3D3D
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 12:35=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwaynean=
> der...=3D
> > > @gmail=3D3D
> > > > > .com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 10:19=3D3D3D3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wr=
> ote:
> >
> > > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > If I understand your position correctly Rich, you support Calif=
> orni=3D
> > > a's
> > > > > > > domestic partnership laws, which allow gays and lesbians to enj=
> oy t=3D
> > > he
> > > > > > > same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples.
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0Correct
> >
> > > > > I thought so, just making sure I'd interpreted your earlier comment=
> s
> > > > > correctly.
> >
> > > > > > > I used to think
> > > > > > > that this represented a good compromise. =3D3DA0But what I beli=
> eve no=3D
> > > w is
> > > > > > > that this compromise still perpetuates the notion that gays and
> > > > > > > lesbians are separate class of people that don't deserve the ex=
> act
> > > > > > > same rights as heterosexuals.
> >
> > > > > > ** Exact same rights? . . Homosexuals are seeking the right to ch=
> ange=3D
> > > =A0the
> > > > > > definition of a 700-yr old word of French origin, =3D3DA0Heterose=
> cuals =3D
> > > do not
> > > > > > have the right to change word definitions
> >
> > > > > From the French marier, from the Old English mariage, from the Lati=
> n
> > > > > maritare (v. to marry) and the Latin maritus (n. husband). =3DA0Who=
> or
> > > > > what gave any of those cultures speaking any of those languages the
> > > > > "right" to create any of those words in the first place?
> >
> > > > =3DA0** =3DA0 Creating a new word to describe something is not the is=
> sue, the
> > > > issue is attempting to change the extant definition of a word to sati=
> sfy
> > > > the whim of one minority group.
> >
> > > > >And once
> > > > > created, why must their meaning remain constant? =3DA0
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0it doesn't, but meanings change through useage. =3DA0Example:=
> =3DA01900=3D
> > > AD -- a
> > > > "computer" was a person who worked in bank using a mechanical adding
> > > > machine.
> >
> > > A good point, very much agree, words *do* change through usage.
> > > Dictionary editors then recognize the changed usage and update their
> > > definitions. =A0Miriam-Webster already includes same sex unions under
> > > their definition of "marriage".
> >
> > > Main Entry: mar=3DB7riage
> > > Pronunciation: \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
> > > Function: noun
> > > Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to
> > > marry
> > > Date: 14th century
> >
> > > (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
> > > husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
> > > recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
> > > same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-
> > > sex marriage>
> >
> > > > >If the English word
> > > > > "marriage" was only 100 years old would you have a different opinio=
> n?
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0If the non-hetero community wants to invent a word for a lega=
> l unio=3D
> > > n
> > > > between two women or two guys, go for it, but attempting to hijack a =
> word
> > > > that has long been used to describe a legal union between one man and=
> one
> > > > women is unliely to be welcomed by the 90% or so of the people that a=
> re
> > > > not homosexual =3D3D=3D3D which is why Prop 8 was approved by the CA =
> electora=3D
> > > te.
> >
> > > Though I would normally side with the will of voters, sometimes it is
> > > appropriate to override the will of the majority, especially in cases
> > > where unconstitutionality exists, and/or when the rights of a of a
> > > minority are being impinged. =A0That's one reason why we have courts: t=
> o
> > > provide a mechanism to counter the tendency of majorities to deny
> > > equal rights to stigmatized or politically disadvantaged minorities.
> >
> > > Having read much of the testimony in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I have
> > > become convinced that this is one such instance. =A0I didn't used to
> > > think so. =A0In fact, when the CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 8
> > > constituted a proper amendment according to California law, I agreed
> > > with their decision.
> >
> > > Ironically, now that this has gone to Federal court, I think it could
> > > work out for the best in the long run once this case hits the US
> > > Supreme Court ... assuming the Justices make the "right" decision.
> >
> > > > >We'd still be hitting our mates over the head with a club and draggi=
> ng t=3D
> > > hem
> > > > > back to our cave.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0I used to date a girl who was into that. =3DA0 She explained =
> that as =3D
> > > a
> > > > little girl she used to do things to get her father to hit her on her
> > > > posterior.
> >
> > > Human behavior is indeed diverse.
> >
> > > > > But now that I mention it ...
> >
> > > > > > > So, I'm really struggling with your position here. =3D3DA0I'm t=
> rying =3D
> > > to
> > > > > > > understand why you would think that any person who wanted to en=
> joy =3D
> > > the
> > > > > > > legal and societal benefits of getting married
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0I've been married 35-yrars. =3D3DA0Benefits of being ma=
> rried? =3D
> > > =3D3DA0 This
> > > > > > is some kind of joke rightXan?
> >
> > > > > Well, I have to laugh at that ... I was asking the same thing as I
> > > > > wrote it. =3DA0But you can't seriously be arguing that you've staye=
> d
> > > > > married for 35 years because it was a DISadvantage for you to do so=
> .
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0I'm still married because I made the extremely stupid mistake=
> of
> > > > teaching her how to load and shoot a Remington Model 1100 shotgun bef=
> ore
> > > > we got married. =3DA0
> >
> > > I thought maybe she'd locked you in the garage with your ham equipment
> > > and thrown away the key. =A0That would have explained a great deal.
> >
> > > > > > > is whimsical, and why
> > > > > > > protecting the definition of a word is more important than trea=
> ting
> > > > > > > all people equally under the law. =3D3DA0To use one of your fav=
> orite =3D
> > > words,
> > > > > > > this seems a little bizarre. =3D3DA0What am I missing?
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0that heteros do not have the right to alter definitions=
> of wo=3D
> > > rds.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > > > Only aliens from Mars do then?
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0chortle
> >
> > > I do try to inject some laughs in between the serious stuff.
> >
> > > -Xan
> >
> > ** =A0laughter is the best medicineXan.
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> I keep that firmly in mind sir.
>
> -Xan
** as do I,
Xan Du
The most complete transformation on ARM that I know of is Steve
Lowther (Fool Speck) who went from full apologist to full critic. By
the time I knew him, his trip to the dark side was already complete,
but in 2001 he wrote a nice essay about his transformation: "From
Apologist to Critic: Fool Speck's Journey".
> But I find it as interesting to observe the people who will cling to
> an absurd
> belief in spite of the evidence and reason presented to them. There
> is a lot of that.
I was intensely interested in that right after I left Mormonism. I
really wanted to make sure that I was getting the relevant evidence
and evaluating it correctly. ARM helped me immensely.
> I think reason is over-rated, I don't believe it has near the power
> we'd like to believe it does.
My understanding is that our brains operate heuristically most of the
time. Your discussion below about post-hoc rationalization fits with
this I think.
> This is not strictly a left/right
> thing.
I claim to be a rabid centrist. This allows me to throw rocks at both
sides and allows me to feel like I'm being objective, even when I'm
probably not. Second- and third-guessing oneself can be quite fun.
> I had long arguments with relatives who were actually
> convinced that Bush demolished the WTC. I found myself arguing with
> them in the exact same fashion as I had to the reich wingers who deny
> AGW, pointing them to the mainstream science articles about it.
Bush, 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq war all happened during the
time I was bailing out of Mormonism, so I was skeptical of the gov't
almost to the point of paranoia. The WTC conspiracy theories were
quite seductive, and found myself having a hard time resisting them.
I have a friend who is utterly convinced that controlled demos brought
down every building in the area, and it's *still* hard for me to put
up a good argument. But I try.
> My favorite was a rather polite long discussion with Diana over the
> truth of the BOM, which seemed to result in having to redefine what
> the word "true" means, factual vs meaningful.
Heh, the watershed moment for me boiled down to an apologist who
effectively argued that the English word "we" did not necessarily
include the speaker saying the word. It utterly and completely
convinced me that I didn't want to be part of a belief system that
required such elaborate mental gymnastics.
It's too bad Diana went dark, she was a standout.
> My sense is that most of what we call "reason" is post-hoc. I read
> some SA articles that suggested the same thing, our decisions are
> often emotional, and reason steps in after the decision to make
> rational sense of our belief. But since we cannot be congnizant of
> a thought until we are aware of it, we suppose we came up with the
> thought through the rational pattern.
>
> Thus this combination of posthoc rationalization and word meaning best
> explains to me how we can hold to a belief against reason and
> evidence. We simply define a useful word that holds enough meanings
> to satisfy the rational and the emotional need of the argument.
I think I remember reading the same article, but I can't remember any
of the detail. Now I'm going to have to dig it out of the pile, it's
really interesting stuff.
> You can say then, ' I know the BOM is true' and express it in a
> sincere honest way to someone else that suggests that everything in
> the book is factual, while at the same time holding on to an
> understanding in yourself that the book is meaningful to you.
Are you familiar with the "inspired fiction" concept as a way to
resolve the disconnect between archeology and the BOM? I thought it
was an interesting way to mitigate some of the intellectual dishonesty
required to be a truly well-informed Mormon AND still believe that
Joseph Smith was a prophet ... but it's a *very* slippery slope.
Thomas Murphy proposed it as a possible way to find meaning in the BOM
even though he intellectually knows that Nephites and Lamanites are
nothing but fictional characters. He said, "The odds for staying in
the church are overwhelming arrayed against me. The Mormon faith is
going to survive one way or another. The Catholic Church survived
Galileo, but they first had to admit they were wrong." That analogy
is a bit of a stretch, but it's still going to be interesting to see
how things play out.
-Xan
sully
> On Feb 23, 1:21 pm, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
snip
> Are you familiar with the "inspired fiction" concept as a way to
> resolve the disconnect between archeology and the BOM? I thought it
> was an interesting way to mitigate some of the intellectual dishonesty
> required to be a truly well-informed Mormon AND still believe that
> Joseph Smith was a prophet ... but it's a *very* slippery slope.
Indeed, and how can "inspired" fiction have such sparse moral lessons
and wholly dull things to say about the human condition compared to a
human fiction like To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Rings, Little
Women, Cannery Row, or Moby Dick.
In the above, how can an humanly invented fantasy by Tolkien be so
much richer and even MORE historically viable than a so-called true
history told to us directly by God. Indeed, there's more evidence
for hobbits in the world than there is for steel swords in ancient
middle america!
> Thomas Murphy proposed it as a possible way to find meaning in the BOM
> even though he intellectually knows that Nephites and Lamanites are
> nothing but fictional characters. He said, "The odds for staying in
> the church are overwhelming arrayed against me. The Mormon faith is
> going to survive one way or another. The Catholic Church survived
> Galileo, but they first had to admit they were wrong." That analogy
> is a bit of a stretch, but it's still going to be interesting to see
> how things play out.
Well folks like you, Just James, and Fool Speck have an interesting
POV to offer to reason. I think it would be worthwhile and
informative to dig back out of google some of the apologetic arguments
you made as TBMs, and comment on your thinking at the time.
I've certainly caught myself in magical thinking quite often, but I
can't find examples of myself defending it zealously.
regards
Mike
Xan Du
> On Feb 23, 9:10 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 1:21 pm, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Are you familiar with the "inspired fiction" concept as a way to
> > resolve the disconnect between archeology and the BOM? I thought it
> > was an interesting way to mitigate some of the intellectual dishonesty
> > required to be a truly well-informed Mormon AND still believe that
> > Joseph Smith was a prophet ... but it's a *very* slippery slope.
>
> Indeed, and how can "inspired" fiction have such sparse moral lessons
> and wholly dull things to say about the human condition compared to a
> human fiction like To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Rings, Little
> Women, Cannery Row, or Moby Dick.
The first novel I ever read on my own as child was Wrinkle in Time by
Madeline L'Engle. I think that needs to be on the list.
> In the above, how can an humanly invented fantasy by Tolkien be so
> much richer and even MORE historically viable than a so-called true
> history told to us directly by God. Indeed, there's more evidence
> for hobbits in the world than there is for steel swords in ancient
> middle america!
<chuckle>
My favorite scriptures have to be the four Gospels of the NT,
specifically because Christ is such a good character. He's was a
progressive, subversive and semi-revolutionary heretic. He had a
clever wit and obviously a lot of passion for trying to liberate his
people from the clutches of a belief system that cared a lot about
rules and orthodoxy, not so much about benevolence and charity. Those
qualities *really* spoke to me. He that hath ears, let him hear.
Would I expect truly inspired scripture to contain the best poetry and
the greatest stories? I don't know that. What I do think is that is
that true scripture would describe a god much further removed from the
vulnerable and finite state of mortality. Mobilizing armies against
idolatrous neighbors to take their arable land and steal their virgin
women is the propaganda of a greedy despot living a brutal and short
life, not the benevolence of an omnipotent entity whose eternal state
of being faces not a single credible threat.
Morally sparse may be too kind, Mike, and maybe I should leave it at
that.
> > Thomas Murphy proposed it as a possible way to find meaning in the BOM
> > even though he intellectually knows that Nephites and Lamanites are
> > nothing but fictional characters. He said, "The odds for staying in
> > the church are overwhelming arrayed against me. The Mormon faith is
> > going to survive one way or another. The Catholic Church survived
> > Galileo, but they first had to admit they were wrong." That analogy
> > is a bit of a stretch, but it's still going to be interesting to see
> > how things play out.
>
> Well folks like you, Just James, and Fool Speck have an interesting
> POV to offer to reason. I think it would be worthwhile and
> informative to dig back out of google some of the apologetic arguments
> you made as TBMs, and comment on your thinking at the time.
I thank you for the compliment and return it.
I never participated here, or anywhere online, as an apologist, but in
the beginning I did take on a few defenses of Mormonism, mostly I
think because I was trying to figure out if it was possible to remain
LDS despite my utter disbelief in Joseph Smith and the BOM, and my
serious doubts about the existence of god(s). Here are a couple of
oldies that I'm not TOO ashamed of having written. Notes and
commentary in [brackets].
-------------------------------------
OT verses NT - Jewish Perspective - Jun. 15, 2001
[Thread started by John Manning. At the time I was pretty worked up
at critics of the LDS church who attacked it from the basis of their
own allegedly more superior and correct Christian beliefs. While I
shared, and continue to share, many of the same critisims of
Mormonism, I violently disagreed with him whenever he made any attacks
on a theological basis. This part of a running argument that had been
from some other earlier threads, so the context here isn't very good,
but it typfies the sort of rants that I engaged in to oppose
theological critiques of Mormonism.]
> In Judaism, the New Testament is rejected because they realize it is in
> contradiction to the Israelite teachings found in the Old Testament.
(snip rest of excerpt)
> Full text (3 pages) located at:
> http://www.thelawkeepers.org/hebrew_h.htm
I briefly skimmed the article pointed to by the above link, and also
checked out the main website. The Jews think that the New Testament
is a load of crap, concocted by the false prophets who followed a
false Messiah.
They assert that Jehovah as described by OT is the one true God:
"2. We believe only in ONE God, The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
who's Name is YIHOVAH as the only true God, creator of the heavens
and
the earth."
This is not unlike the rhetoric that other religious organizations,
Christian and otherwise, spew forth in copious quantities. All these
organizations have valid arguments in support of their faith.
My opinion: If there is a God, (he/she/it) is either laughing at our
ignorance and can't wait for us to die so we can be properly
educated,
or is preparing to wipe us from the face of the earth and start over
again.
In the face of such inconsistency, how can you begin to defend your
own faith and belief, John? In light of your own indefensible
position, where do you find the /chutzpah/ to be critical of Mormon
*doctrines*? (Note: I'm not complaining about your critique of LDS
"corporate oppression", I share many of your views on that remember
...)
[Later in the same thread]
I think my main reason to wade into this discussion is to make the
point that even charlatans can create philosophies that have great
worth. I make the point that Mormonism is not the only religious
organization founded by people who could be considered false-prophets
and deceivers. I make the point that those sincere followers of such
sects, whether ignorant or not, ought to receive a little respect for
the goodness they bring to the world.
So what if faithful God-believers are dillusionary, so long as they
don't force their beliefs on other people? When Christians start
killing Muslims, let's get pissed off. When Mormons start
prosecuting
people for polygamy, or start defending the "sanctity of the marriage
covenant" by political action, let's hang the Mormons for being
oppressionists.
[My thinking then, as it continues to this day, is that no one faith
based organization has any better claim to truth and authority than
any other. No evidence to support your claim? Great, no basis from
which to make an argument, thanks and try again. But I was also
looking for reasons to be able to stay remain a practicing LDS. I was
trying to talk myself into believing that I could, in good conscience,
continue to actively participate in an organization that I knew to be
based on fiction and lies. I was trying to rationalize, "hey, if all
religions are b/s then being a Mormon is no worse than being Catholic,
Muslim or Jewish. It was a fairly severe moral crisis, and a
seemingly bizarre defense of Mormonsim, but one that I'd learned from,
guess where, other Mormons.]
-------------------------------------
"Sunstone: The Cost of Intellectualism" - June 18, 2001
I am curious about what rabid "anti" types have to
say, but have little respect for their embittered bias. I have much
more respect for the folks that have the constitution to recognize
their irreconcilable differences with the Church, and make the
responsible decision to withdraw honorably, and without guile. Their
criticism is much more balanced and constructive, and I highly value
their opinions.
[Moving from the quiet and (usually) polite discussions in Gospel
Doctrine class where serious doubts are never aired and open dissent
is immediately squashed, ARM was a shocking transition. To this day I
often have trouble separating strong informed opinion from prejudiced
ignorant biased beliefs, but when I wrote this it was nearly
impossible to tell the difference, particulary WRT the LDS church. I
branded anyone who engaged in really pointed discussion or said
insulting things as inherently unreliable and untrustworthy, while at
the same time engaging in pointed discussions and saying insulting
things. I came to ARM looking for information and instead found a
nauseating shoutfest. So, being in need and tending as I do toward
self-importance, I set out to clean up my own tendency toward verbal
abuse, and try to guilt the rest of the group into doing the same.
Some of the "rabid anti types" I'm railing at here later became
trusted sources of information and people I considered friends.]
To sum up, I think it's pretty clear that the LDS Church is in a
retrenchment mode when it comes to opening itself up to intellectual
scrutiny. Gordon B. Hinckley and Marlin K. Jensen are two GAs that I
have perceived who demonstrate some desire to engage with
"mainstream"
or "alternative" elements, but they are hog-tied by the momentum of
the toward belief in ignorance as exhibited by the whole organization.
[This is one I cringe to read today. Still clinging to the hope that
I could remain an active member by making shit up. What looked like
"retrenchment" to me was really just a dawning awareness of the extent
to which the LDS church quashes open dissent. Even though I didn't
believe that Hinckley was a prophet of God, I still very much wanted
to find out that I was wrong. In 1998 I was fully intellectually
aware that the BOM had no factual basis and that Joseph Smith was a
con-artist. I should have left then, but I didn't -- a decision that
by 2001 I was severely regretting. This is me exhibiting post hoc
rationalization at its very worst.]
-------------------------------------
> I've certainly caught myself in magical thinking quite often, but I
> can't find examples of myself defending it zealously.
>
> regards
> Mike
Sounds familiar. The samples above are not what I'd call very zealous
apologetics, or rational thought for that matter. But it's oft been
argued here that "Mormon apologetics" and "rational thought" are
mutually exclusive phenomena.
Cheers,
Xan
�R.L.Measures
<69d188c5-ef20-49d7...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 4:05=A0am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 9:10=A0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 23, 1:21=A0pm, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > Are you familiar with the "inspired fiction" concept as a way to
> > > resolve the disconnect between archeology and the BOM? I thought it
> > > was an interesting way to mitigate some of the intellectual dishonesty
> > > required to be a truly well-informed Mormon AND still believe that
> > > Joseph Smith was a prophet ... but it's a *very* slippery slope.
> >
> > Indeed, and how can "inspired" fiction have such sparse moral lessons
> > and wholly dull =A0things to say about the human condition compared to a
> > human fiction like To Kill a Mockingbird, =A0Lord of the Rings, =A0Little
> > Women, =A0Cannery Row, or Moby Dick.
>
> The first novel I ever read on my own as child was Wrinkle in Time by
> Madeline L'Engle. I think that needs to be on the list.
>
> > In the above, how can an humanly invented fantasy by Tolkien be so
> > much richer and even MORE historically viable than a so-called true
> > history told to us directly by God. =A0 Indeed, =A0there's more evidence
> > for hobbits in the world than there is for steel swords in ancient
> > middle america!
>
> <chuckle>
>
> My favorite scriptures have to be the four Gospels of the NT,
> specifically because Christ is such a good character. He's was a
> progressive, subversive and semi-revolutionary heretic. He had a
> clever wit and obviously a lot of passion for trying to liberate his
> people from the clutches of a belief system that cared a lot about
> rules and orthodoxy, not so much about benevolence and charity. Those
> qualities *really* spoke to me. He that hath ears, let him hear.
>
** BINGO. This rabbi was definitely not good news to "holy men".
John Manning
[snip]
> My favorite scriptures have to be the four Gospels of the NT,
> specifically because Christ is such a good character. He's was a
> progressive, subversive and semi-revolutionary heretic. He had a
> clever wit and obviously a lot of passion for trying to liberate his
> people from the clutches of a belief system that cared a lot about
> rules and orthodoxy, not so much about benevolence and charity. Those
> qualities *really* spoke to me. He that hath ears, let him hear.
>
> Would I expect truly inspired scripture to contain the best poetry and
> the greatest stories? I don't know that. What I do think is that is
> that true scripture would describe a god much further removed from the
> vulnerable and finite state of mortality. Mobilizing armies against
> idolatrous neighbors to take their arable land and steal their virgin
> women is the propaganda of a greedy despot living a brutal and short
> life, not the benevolence of an omnipotent entity whose eternal state
> of being faces not a single credible threat.
Beautiful stuff, Xan.
[snip to end]
sully
> On Feb 24, 4:05 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:10 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 1:21 pm, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
snip good stuff
Join the club!. I see this as very similar to Just James before he
committed
to leaving. It's obvious you aren't a TBM, as you have many
doubts,
and your apologetics are more a matter of wishful thinking than stout
defense.
I think you, like James, bristled emotionally at the certainty of the
'antis' or
the critics, and most certainly against theistic critics of the
church you
you began to recognize had no more ground to stand on than you
did. :^)
It's certainly not a simple phenomenon. Many people can behave with
great
certainty yet harbor deep doubts. Some here have suggested that some
of
the most vehement apologists for the church come onto ARM simply to
shore up their testimony, to purge their doubts by engaging the
critics.
Of course the apologetic response to you and James had simply been
that you'd lost your testimony, you need to pray and make pure your
heart
and Jesus will help you back into the light.
My sense is that absolute religious certainty is impenetrable by
reason.
I think doubt has to be created from an emotional, not an intellectual
level.
Perhaps there is something in common between emotional certainty and
addiction?
Xan Du
> "XanDu" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Excellent citations, Gene. I would add to these this rather eloquent
argument from 2 Neph. 9:
28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the
frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they
think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for
they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their
wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall
perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of
God.
Having memorized this scripture in High School, it weighed quite
heavily in my mind as I began to reject the BOM's divine origin on the
basis of the learnings of men. (It's not my intent to turn this
discussion into a referendum on JS, Jr. and the BOM, I think I've had
plenty to say on that over the years ... just establishing that I am
aware of and have internalized the scriptural concepts you've raised.
And well, I do like to get my digs in when I can. <G>)
Right, so social change. Liberal atheists are all for it, religious
conservatives resist it. Both sides of this hastily constructed and
overly simplistic coin could be accused of logical fallacies; the
liberal atheists of appeal to novelty, and the religious conservatives
of appeal to tradition. My personal opinion is that not all social
change is good, and that not all traditions are bad. So in a
disagreement over an issue of social change, one must evaluate both
alternatives in a way that avoids both fallacies.
The plaintiffs in Perry have framed their argument in terms that don't
call for making a derision between good (protecting the institution of
marriage) and bad (corrupting the institution of marriage), but rather
trying to determine the greatest of two goods: 1) protecting the
beliefs of the majority and 2) extending an equal right to a
minority. Unfortunately the popular debate raging outside the
courtrooms are so highly polarized that the actual arguments being
made in the court right now sometimes get lost in the invective. We
have one side saying that a noisy minority is attempting to force
their evil lifestyle and morality down their throats, and the other
side saying that a bigoted and prejudiced majority is oppressively
denying them their equal rights. The tenor of those arguments is very
different from the testimony given in the courtroom.
Now, I clearly feel the greater good is to give gays and lesbians the
rights they are asking for. I want to discuss why within the context
of the scriptures that you and I have both posted.
Religion does change. A neutral observer would note that contemporary
Christianity (mostly) no longer practices polygamy as allowed by Old
Testament law (Deut. 21:15 "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and
another hated ..."), no longer advocate the death penalty for
adultery, incest, homosexuality or bestiality (Lev. 20:10-16) and no
longer ostracise men who sleep with menstruating women (Lev. 20:18).
When religion does change, the presumption is that God commanded it to
do so. Hence, don't be tossed to and fro by the slight of men. To be
learned is good if one finds the truth through learning and hearkens
to the councils of God. And these are acceptable arguments. I think
that for a person trying to discover God's truth for *themselves* so
as to define their own actions by God's code of morality ... well, I'm
all for it. Be free to define your own life according to your own
interpretation of scripture. Furthermore, be free to publicly express
your belief! What a wonderful right to be able to say that you
believe homosexuality to be a sin and that you don't approve of that
lifestyle because it threatens the health of society. Being concerned
about society is a laudable thing, and standing for one's beliefs to
protect that society is the hallmark of a healthy democracy.
But another hallmark of a healthy democracy is to provide equal
protection to people who hold different religious beliefs. Again, a
neutral observer would note that not all Christians believe the same
things. They don't all interpret Scripture the same way. Many
Christians argue that the Old Testament does not in fact condone
polygamy. Some Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost
are one being with three incarnations, others believe that they are
separate and distinct individuals.
The same equal protection under the law I am invoking to support the
right of gays and lesbians to marry, and to call it marriage, also
protect the the equal rights of people who hold differing religious
beliefs, or who hold no religious belief at all.
It has been alleged by supporters of Proposition 8 that allowing gays
and lesbians to marry is a slippery slope. Well, slippery slope is
another fallacy, a type of non sequitur. It does not necessarily
follow that extending equal rights to a stigmatized minority will harm
at-large society in the slightest. But if one wants to worry about
slippery slopes, worry about this one: denying rights to one group on
the basis of religious belief undermines the equal protection that
allows the free practice of that religious belief itself. Failing to
recognize this (being in the comfortable position of a relative
majority) still looks awfully hypocritical, and it is no wonder that
the LDS church is drawing some bad PR on this one. Heck of a
missionary strategy, I gotta say <G>.
> ***** Ability to accept AND EVALUATE new information and perhaps reconcile
> it with current beliefs, perhaps modify current beliefs to fit the new
> information, is extremely important. So it seems to me that closed
> mindedness is a great error. That is to have made up one's mind and to
> refuse to hear at all, when new information is presented. But it is possible
> to have a mind so open that truth falls out of it and is lost.
Sure. Believing in bad information because one has an open mind can
lead to false conclusions. The scientific method I hold so dear has a
long history of arriving at the wrong conclusions about reality
because the investigators didn't have all the information or
incorrectly interpreted the information they had. This is the human
condition, the consequence fallibility, limited capacity to reason and
limited sets of data.
I reject religion on the basis that there's no evidence to support the
scriptural assertion that God exists -- by definition scripture is
very clear that God cannot be known to exist through examination of
the evidence, it must be taken on faith through a spiritual witness
obtained through prayer. I have not ever received that witness. I
tried for 20 years to get it and got nothing but sweat and tears on my
bedsheets to show for it. I honestly wish that I had gotten an
answer, I envy all those who claim that they do. I cannot prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are wrong, and I have no desire
to do that. But I can and will defend how and why I believe what I
do, and hold that there is no such thing as a mind that is to open.
Our minds HAVE to be as open as we can comfortably make them; there
are too many things we don't know about, and it would be a sin against
our very existence to close our minds to any shred of new knowledge.
> In other words, the ability and willingness for people
> to change their opinion or belief is underrepresented. People with
> strong opinions and concrete beliefs tend to be the most willing to
> air them. I think we'd have more thoughtful and interesting
> conversations if we were all more vocal and honest about things that
> we don't have such strong opinions of, were more willing to risk being
> wrong. But I have been known to have overly-idealistic wants.
>
> ***** Anyone who comes to a forum to state his doubts and lack of
> understanding will certainly not fail to find many who will be willing to
> tell him the rock bottom truth which he must believe or be thought an idiot!
Anyone who fears to be wrong has a closed mind Gene, thanks for making
my point. <G>
> > I stay away because I simply do not enjoy being there.
>
> ARM can be a rather unpleasant place, no doubt about it.
>
> > I really doubt that the leaders of the Church give a lot of thought
> > to ARM.
>
> ARM specifically? Probably not. But I'm sure there's been discussion
> about forums such as this in general.
>
> ***** Of course. The leaders have mentioned many times that the Internet can
> be used for much good, and the Church indeed seems to be attemtping to use
> it in that way, but that it is also being used by the forces of evil to lead
> us into even more error. You may recall that there must be opposition in all
> things. (2 Nephi 2:11)
Right, which is why I know I'm going to Heaven too ... I'm part of the
plan.
Isa. 45
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create
evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Rich's hypothesis is that LDS leadership may have become concerned
that amateur apologetic debates here and elsewhere were hurting the
image of the church. Not just on ARM, but in general. It is a
statement that would seem to fit some of the facts, namely that ARM is
bereft of the presence of some previously very stalwart defenders of
late, so I consider Rich's hypothesis plausible. Also plausible is
that Guy, Woody, and Charles et. al. simply got tired of banging their
heads against the likes of Duwayne, Rich, Manning, et. al. My own
sabbatical was partially due to needing a break from the tension of
contention.
> > I venture back from time to time just to see what is happening and maybe I
> > even make a comment, which I then usually regret. But the main way I get
> > back there is to respond to something without noticing it is cross posted.
>
> > 73, my friend,
>
> > Gene
>
> > > cheers
>
> > > --
> > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> I hope you haven't regretted this particular foray. I certainly
> appreciated your comments.
>
> -Xan
>
> I did not venture back. ARMF was invaded and it took a couple of posts
> before I even noticed the cross posting. When I saw you and realized that
> you seemed to be a reasonable man, I thought it worth while to continue for
> a time. I also have "known" Rich for a long time on fora such as this, and
> aside from the fact that I think he believes some things that I don't <G> I
> usually get along well with him. (Rich, not talking about you as if you are
> not here. Not saying anything I would not say to you! <G>))
>
> Gene
You also seem to be a reasonable man, and I have welcomed your polite
opposition and thoughtful agreement.
Regards,
Xan "fighting fallacy with fallacy" Du
Xan Du
Korihor is a pretty convincing guy too:
Alma 30:
25 Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because
of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not
guilty because of its parents.
But ....
Ezekiel 18:
19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the
father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and
hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
JS, Jr. sometimes got his stories crossed, methinks.
-Xan
Xan Du
Been wanting to get that one off my chest for a while. Glad you liked
it.
-Xan
Xan Du
> On Feb 25, 12:40 am,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 4:05 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 9:10 pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 1:21 pm, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> snip good stuff
Thanks. I'm afraid you've unleashed more, snip as you will.
> > [This is one I cringe to read today. Still clinging to the hope that
> > I could remain an active member by making shit up. What looked like
> > "retrenchment" to me was really just a dawning awareness of the extent
> > to which the LDS church quashes open dissent. Even though I didn't
> > believe that Hinckley was a prophet of God, I still very much wanted
> > to find out that I was wrong. In 1998 I was fully intellectually
> > aware that the BOM had no factual basis and that Joseph Smith was a
> > con-artist. I should have left then, but I didn't -- a decision that
> > by 2001 I was severely regretting. This is me exhibiting post hoc
> > rationalization at its very worst.]
>
> Join the club!. I see this as very similar to Just James before he
> committed
> to leaving. It's obvious you aren't a TBM, as you have many
> doubts,
> and your apologetics are more a matter of wishful thinking than stout
> defense.
> I think you, like James, bristled emotionally at the certainty of the
> 'antis' or
> the critics, and most certainly against theistic critics of the
> church you
> you began to recognize had no more ground to stand on than you
> did. :^)
That is my view as well. It was good for me to read back those old
posts and comment on my conflicted state of mind ... good to see how
far I've come since then. While I could never claim that I have all
the answers, or that I'm "right" beyond any shadow of doubt, it's so
very nice to be comfortable in my own skin.
> It's certainly not a simple phenomenon. Many people can behave with
> great
> certainty yet harbor deep doubts. Some here have suggested that some
> of
> the most vehement apologists for the church come onto ARM simply to
> shore up their testimony, to purge their doubts by engaging the
> critics.
A dangerous game, that. This place is and has been inhabited by some
very convincing critics.
> Of course the apologetic response to you and James had simply been
> that you'd lost your testimony, you need to pray and make pure your
> heart
> and Jesus will help you back into the light.
That really used to turn my crank. Here's one such case from the
archives:
-----------------------------
Latter-day Pharisees & the Word of Wisdom - Aug. 8, 2001
My favorite example from this year was on the lesson entitled "Be Not
Decieved but Continue in Steadfastness". The instructor wrote on the
board:
A pint of cream.
A mispelled name.
A lack of seating.
And then had us guess what these all had in common. Someone who'd
read
ahead answered, "They're all causes over which someone left the
Church."
(The "apostates" in question were Thomas B. Marsh, Simonds Ryder, and
Frazier Eaton.)
Now, logic tells me that people have left the Church for far more
legitimate
concerns. But the manual has zip to say about anyone with a real
gripe
leaving the Church! C'mon Salt Lake! There are some of us out here
who
resent being treated like imbeciles!!
-----------------------------
These days I'm less upset at Salt Lake for treating me like an
imbecile, more upset at them for causing my stepmother to think that
me and 2 of my other siblings have left the Church over a pint of
cream. It makes her think that if we could just soften our hearts and
get over our petty differences that we'd all come back to the fold.
But I've had this fear that if I sat down and told her all the real
reasons that I left she just wouldn't hear it, or get mad, or I don't
know. So I chip away at it from time to time. I told her just last
week that there's an elephant in the room that we're ignoring and she
agreed. So I may get my audience after all.
> My sense is that absolute religious certainty is impenetrable by
> reason.
Great slogan, is it your own? Google would lead me to believe that
the Internet has no knowledge of anyone having strung together those
exact words in that particular order. Regardless, this is obviously
the subject of much discussion by "real philosophers", and it led me
to find this little gem from Brand Blanchard, critically paraphrasing
Karl Barth and Emil Brunner:
"Religious knowledge does not have to pass ordinary tests. It need
not submit even to the laws of logic. To require that it should is to
measure it by human standards, and that is to commit the sin of
pride."
http://www.anthonyflood.com/blanshardreasonunreasonreligion.htm
I would say that some extremely honest theists might admit that their
beliefs cannot be rationally defended, that they are a personal
experience unique to themselves. Indeed we have seen a number of
apologists here come out and say that. At that point, there's nothing
more I can really say, except perhaps for something really snide. I
have some regrets on that score.
But when theists make appeals to promote religion over science on
appeals to logic and evidence, I sometimes have a big problem with
that. (Of course, this is why some apologists have had a big problem
with me.) Blanchard seems to agree, here's the final conclusion from
the same essay:
"The attempt to defend religious knowledge by a return to
irrationalism will not serve. The universe is not to be conceived as
a gigantic layer cake in which the lower stratum is governed by
scientific law and an intelligible logic, and the upper stratum is
somehow released from these restrictions into the freedom of
incoherence. The theologians who have tried to fix these boundaries
have not been able to respect them, and in the attempt to do so they
have not only reduced religious knowledge to something dangerously
like zero but managed to cast a skeptical shadow over our secular
knowledge as well."
> I think doubt has to be created from an emotional, not an intellectual
> level.
>
> Perhaps there is something in common between emotional certainty and
> addiction?
How many people have you known who have been addicted to infatuation?
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<e0e11646-ffa3-4fb1...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Xan Du
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:10=A0am, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <69d188c5-ef20-49d7-8b05-eb5040ecb...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,Xan
> > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 24, 4:05=3DA0am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 23, 9:10=3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 23, 1:21=3DA0pm, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > snip
> >
> > > > > Are you familiar with the "inspired fiction" concept as a way to
> > > > > resolve the disconnect between archeology and the BOM? I thought it
> > > > > was an interesting way to mitigate some of the intellectual dishone=
> sty
> > > > > required to be a truly well-informed Mormon AND still believe that
> > > > > Joseph Smith was a prophet ... but it's a *very* slippery slope.
> >
> > > > Indeed, and how can "inspired" fiction have such sparse moral lessons
> > > > and wholly dull =3DA0things to say about the human condition compared=
> to a
> > > > human fiction like To Kill a Mockingbird, =3DA0Lord of the Rings, =3D=
> A0Little
> > > > Women, =3DA0Cannery Row, or Moby Dick.
> >
> > > The first novel I ever read on my own as child was Wrinkle in Time by
> > > Madeline L'Engle. =A0I think that needs to be on the list.
> >
> > > > In the above, how can an humanly invented fantasy by Tolkien be so
> > > > much richer and even MORE historically viable than a so-called true
> > > > history told to us directly by God. =3DA0 Indeed, =3DA0there's more e=
> vidence
> > > > for hobbits in the world than there is for steel swords in ancient
> > > > middle america!
> >
> > > <chuckle>
> >
> > > My favorite scriptures have to be the four Gospels of the NT,
> > > specifically because Christ is such a good character. =A0He's was a
> > > progressive, subversive and semi-revolutionary heretic. =A0He had a
> > > clever wit and obviously a lot of passion for trying to liberate his
> > > people from the clutches of a belief system that cared a lot about
> > > rules and orthodoxy, not so much about benevolence and charity. =A0Thos=
> e
> > > qualities *really* spoke to me. =A0He that hath ears, let him hear.
> >
> > ** =A0BINGO. =A0This rabbi was definitely not good news to "holy men".
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> Korihor is a pretty convincing guy too:
>
> Alma 30:
> 25 Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because
> of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not
> guilty because of its parents.
>
> But ....
>
> Ezekiel 18:
> 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the
> father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and
> hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
> 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
> iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
> the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
> wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
>
> JS, Jr. sometimes got his stories crossed, methinks.
** keeping track of lies is not easy after age 35.
>
> -Xan
Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
> Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 12:35=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 10:19=A0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com=
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com> wrot=
> > e:
>
> > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniability=
> > of sayn=3D
> > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > anything important. <G>
>
> > > > > > > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing Mormo=
> > ns,"
> > > > > > > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
>
> > > > > > > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the evidence
> > > > > > > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" can d=
> > o
> > > > > > > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important."
>
> > > > > > > Here's the link to that story, again:
>
> > > > > > >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antigay-e=
> > ffort/
>
> > > > > > > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is that =
> > the
> > > > > > > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to the
> > > > > > > Mormon apologists. =3DA0It doesn't seem to matter at all to "You"=
> > and
> > > > > > > Fuller that their church lied. =3DA0That doesn't seem to bother t=
> > hem at
> > > > > > > all. =3DA0Rather, it seems the most important thing for "You" and=
> > Fuller
> > > > > > > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if the=
> > y
> > > > > > > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
>
> > > > > > > DuwayneAnderson
> > > > > > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > > > > > > science"
> > > > > > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
>
> > > > > > I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning for
> > > > > > posting something on-topic and 2) youDuwaynefor continuing to fight
> > > > > > the good fight.
>
> > > > > > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continues t=
> > o
> > > > > > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a watersh=
> > ed
> > > > > > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> > > > > > continued involvement in what is now really starting to look like a
> > > > > > losing battle. =A0And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
>
> > > > > > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too man=
> > y
> > > > > > times to count.
>
> > > > > =95 =A0"... We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, th=
> > e
> > > > > cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character =
> > that
> > > > > you can mention."
> > > > > --- =A0 Brigham Young
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> > > > In the Wild Wild West, these were talents to be admired.
>
> > > > It's really just you andDuwayneholding the fort these days isn't
> > > > it.
>
> > > > -Xan
>
> > > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
> > > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> > > unconditionally condemn genocide
>
> ** I don't condemn anything because it's silly lip-service.
A common refrain of most closet bigots.
It's a shame there were so many Germans during WWII that refused to
"condemn" Nazi atrocities, and so many "good" people that refused to
"condemn" racism during the Civil Rights movement in America. And
what a shame that we didn't have more people "condemning" the
holocaust of the American Indians.
>
> > (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> > > gays (I don't).
>
> ** I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whether
> they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> consenting beastiality. .
News flash for R. L. Measures -- you are using a word (Gay) in a way
that has been "redefined" to mean something it didn't used to mean.
>
>
> > I read a bit of the genocide thread. Seems like that was a while
> > ago. I suppose the "aunties" inability to get their talking points
> > straight makes the TBM's that much more cozy. But it is as it should
> > be.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
> > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> > unconditionally condemn genocide (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> > gays (I don't).
>
> I read a bit of the genocide thread. Seems like that was a while
> ago. I suppose the "aunties" inability to get their talking points
> straight makes the TBM's that much more cozy.
I think there's a fundamental disconnect in assuming that all the
folks opposed to the LDS Church think alike. Perhaps it comes from
the fact that a lot of Mormons *do* think alike.
I simply wanted to make the point that one shouldn't lump all the
Mormon critics together.
I could not disagree more with Measures over his justification of
genocide. Nor could I agree with nuts like Logan Sacket who (although
opposed to Mormonism) is a religious fanatic that opposes the science
of evolution and global warming.
In the broader scheme of things I have virtually nothing in common
with these two characters. Indeed, in spite of their opposition to
Mormonism I think they have a *lot* in common with Mormonism.
Including (in Measures' case) hatred of Gays and (in Logan's case) a
deep distrust of science.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Since we've been debating here I've rethought my original arguments.
Debating? Who's debating?
> Some weren't fully formed and some were not clearly written. I
> appreciate your feedback. I want to briefly reformulate my arguments
> in response to the discussion we've been having. Here goes.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> The proponents of Prop. 8 made factually incorrect public statements
> over their campaign to pass the initiative.
Agreed.
> The LDS Church played a
> leading role in supporting the Yes on 8 campaign, and actively
> organized its efforts. In addition, the LDS Church aggressively
> encouraged its members in California to contribute their own time and
> money to support the campaign. To the extent that the LDS Church
> knowingly disseminated false information to its members and the
> general public during the course of the campaign, and continues to do
> so, I strongly condemn its leadership.
Agreed.
>
> I am less inclined to so strongly condemn LDS volunteers in California
> who did not play a significant role in formulating the message of the
> campaign itself.
Partially disagree. They are less culpable than their evil leaders,
but they should still be held accountable for falsehoods they spread
if, with a reasonable amount of effort, they could determined the
statements to be false.
> I support the right of all citizens to mobilize and
> campaign in support of social and political issues.
Agreed. And that has nothing to do with the morality of lying, I
might add.
> Even though I
> disagree with their position on this issue, I respect their
> willingness to act on their beliefs and mobilize to action.
Agreed. And that has nothing to do with the morality of lying, I
might add.
> More significantly, the LDS Church leadership discourages its members
> from questioning its authority, doctrines and beliefs.
Agreed.
> Its members
> are a product of a culture that conditions them to hold their leaders
> in the highest esteem and to trust their wisdom, knowledge and honesty
> above any other institution and authority.
Agreed.
> As a formerly active LDS
> member, it has been my experience that many committed and devout
> Mormons become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own
> leaders lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly
> clear that lies were told.
Disagree. I think they *are* capable. Lazy, yes. Incapable, no.
>
> I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue of ethics and
> morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> apologists."
And I believe their flagrant disregard for truth does make it "seem"
as though morality is completely unimportant to them.
One thing you may not have noticed is that I used the word "seems"
deliberately. This is the view from my vantage point. The view may
be different (indeed *is* different) from your vantage point, but you
really can't prove that the view from *my* vantage point isn't exactly
as I've described it.
> [Noting the clarification that your use of "apologist"
> referred more to the likes of Nibley, FAIR, FARMS, not the "lay"
> members I am describing in the previous paragraph.] I believe that
> Mormonism is highly moral
Mormonism, as opposed to "Mormons" is about the religion. The
religion can hardly be called "highly moral." Lying in the name of
god isn't highly "moral." Conning people out of their money isn't
"moral."
I submit that the only reason you call Mormonism "moral" is because
you were indoctrinated to think that way.
> in that it represents a highly codified set
> of beliefs,
Believing in stupid things (like the Book of Mormon) doesn't make a
person "moral."?
> and that many of its members are highly ethical in that
> seem to sincerely endeavor to live by its moral code.
I can't think of a *single* element of Mormonism's "moral code" that
makes a difference in anyone's life that isn't shared by the majority
of atheists that I know.
In fact, of all the supposedly "moral" aspects of Mormonism, I'll bet
you can't think of a *single* one that is outwardly significant (that
is, significant to anyone but another Mormon) that wasn't known and
practiced hundreds of years before Mormonism.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> So, that's more along the lines of what I originally wanted to write.
We agree roughly 80% of the time.
> It's still choppy, doesn't really flow all that well, needs some
> supporting evidence and citations ... in other words it's not really a
> proper note or essay, more of an outline for some things I have to say
> about this issue.
>
> I purposely distilled it by leaving out the references to Dr. Tam and
> other editorial asides. Also, the first three paragraphs are what I
> care most about here ... the 4th paragraph is the "dig" to get people
> talking. Though any hope of attracting LDS apologists to the
> discussion in this forum is probably a vain one ... a fact that I'm
> lamenting a great deal at present. I thought about leaving it out of
> this post altogether.
>
> I need to cut this short tonight, which is unfortunate. I want to
> take up some of other things in your latest response, particularly the
> discussion about Dawkins, but also some others.
>
> Until next time,
See you then.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
> Xan
>
> <snip to end>
Xan Du
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:34 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
> > > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> > > unconditionally condemn genocide (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> > > gays (I don't).
>
> > I read a bit of the genocide thread. Seems like that was a while
> > ago. I suppose the "aunties" inability to get their talking points
> > straight makes the TBM's that much more cozy.
>
> I think there's a fundamental disconnect in assuming that all the
> folks opposed to the LDS Church think alike. Perhaps it comes from
> the fact that a lot of Mormons *do* think alike.
>
> I simply wanted to make the point that one shouldn't lump all the
> Mormon critics together.
As you should have. At the time I wrote that, I wasn't aware of the
differences (mild understatement) between you and Rich on the genocide
thread or the same-sex marriage issue.
> I could not disagree more with Measures over his justification of
> genocide. Nor could I agree with nuts like Logan Sacket who (although
> opposed to Mormonism) is a religious fanatic that opposes the science
> of evolution and global warming.
That much was evident to me when I first made the "holding the fort"
statement. Lumping you and Logan into the same camp would be like
associating Lee Paulson with Jeff Shirton.
> In the broader scheme of things I have virtually nothing in common
> with these two characters. Indeed, in spite of their opposition to
> Mormonism I think they have a *lot* in common with Mormonism.
> Including (in Measures' case) hatred of Gays and (in Logan's case) a
> deep distrust of science.
I note your position and retract my statement.
-Xan
Duwaynea Anderson
merci
�R.L.Measures
<9f6dbaea-93c8-4831...@o16g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:07=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <a2344508-b8d1-485f-b5c6-f68b3cc8b...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Xan
> >
> >
> >
> > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 12:35=3DA0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 10:19=3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 17, 10:08=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3D3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gma=
> il.com=3D
> >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3D3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mchsi.com=
> > wrot=3D
> > > e:
> >
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible deniabi=
> lity=3D
> > > =A0of sayn=3D3D
> > > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > anything important. <G>
> >
> > > > > > > > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believing M=
> ormo=3D
> > > ns,"
> > > > > > > > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimony."
> >
> > > > > > > > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the eviden=
> ce
> > > > > > > > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fuller" c=
> an d=3D
> > > o
> > > > > > > > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "important=
> ."
> >
> > > > > > > > Here's the link to that story, again:
> >
> > > > > > > >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-antig=
> ay-e=3D
> > > ffort/
> >
> > > > > > > > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display is t=
> hat =3D
> > > the
> > > > > > > > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant to =
> the
> > > > > > > > Mormon apologists. =3D3DA0It doesn't seem to matter at all to=
> "You"=3D
> > > =A0and
> > > > > > > > Fuller that their church lied. =3D3DA0That doesn't seem to bo=
> ther t=3D
> > > hem at
> > > > > > > > all. =3D3DA0Rather, it seems the most important thing for "Yo=
> u" and=3D
> > > =A0Fuller
> > > > > > > > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- even if=
> the=3D
> > > y
> > > > > > > > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
> >
> > > > > > > > DuwayneAnderson
> > > > > > > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism a=
> nd
> > > > > > > > science"
> > > > > > > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > > > > > > I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Manning =
> for
> > > > > > > posting something on-topic and 2) youDuwaynefor continuing to f=
> ight
> > > > > > > the good fight.
> >
> > > > > > > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California continu=
> es t=3D
> > > o
> > > > > > > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a wat=
> ersh=3D
> > > ed
> > > > > > > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church's
> > > > > > > continued involvement in what is now really starting to look li=
> ke a
> > > > > > > losing battle. =3DA0And, I certainly hope they do lose it.
> >
> > > > > > > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum too=
> man=3D
> > > y
> > > > > > > times to count.
> >
> > > > > > =3D95 =3DA0"... We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the w=
> orld, th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of charac=
> ter =3D
> > > that
> > > > > > you can mention."
> > > > > > --- =3DA0 Brigham Young
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > > > In the Wild Wild West, these were talents to be admired.
> >
> > > > > It's really just you andDuwayneholding the fort these days isn't
> > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > -Xan
> >
> > > > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same fort.
> > > > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> > > > unconditionally condemn genocide
> >
> > ** =A0I don't condemn anything because it's silly lip-service.
** Does Duwayne think it really matters if either of us condemns anything?
>
> A common refrain of most closet bigots.
>
** Duwane is not exactly okay with Jews.
> It's a shame there were so many Germans during WWII that refused to
> "condemn" Nazi atrocities,
** The ones that did got killed Duwayne. The movie "The White Rose"
tells the story of what happened to University of Berlin students who
spoke out against the Third Reich.
>and so many "good" people that refused to
> "condemn" racism during the Civil Rights movement in America. And
> what a shame that we didn't have more people "condemning" the
> holocaust of the American Indians.
>
** yeah Duwayne, but now that stupid palefaces are loosing their shirts
at Indian casinos, the Indians are getting closer to getting even.
> >
> > > (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> > > > gays (I don't).
> >
> > ** =A0I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group whethe=
> r
> > they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> > consenting beastiality. =A0.
>
> News flash for R. L. Measures -- you are using a word (Gay) in a way
> that has been "redefined" to mean something it didn't used to mean.
** true, word definitions change, but through usage - not through
pressure groups.
>
cheers
Xan Du
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:31 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Since we've been debating here I've rethought my original arguments.
>
> Debating? Who's debating?
The "we" in the above referred to you and me. How would you
characterize it?
> > Some weren't fully formed and some were not clearly written. I
> > appreciate your feedback. I want to briefly reformulate my arguments
> > in response to the discussion we've been having. Here goes.
>
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > The proponents of Prop. 8 made factually incorrect public statements
> > over their campaign to pass the initiative.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The LDS Church played a
> > leading role in supporting the Yes on 8 campaign, and actively
> > organized its efforts. In addition, the LDS Church aggressively
> > encouraged its members in California to contribute their own time and
> > money to support the campaign. To the extent that the LDS Church
> > knowingly disseminated false information to its members and the
> > general public during the course of the campaign, and continues to do
> > so, I strongly condemn its leadership.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I am less inclined to so strongly condemn LDS volunteers in California
> > who did not play a significant role in formulating the message of the
> > campaign itself.
>
> Partially disagree. They are less culpable than their evil leaders,
> but they should still be held accountable for falsehoods they spread
> if, with a reasonable amount of effort, they could determined the
> statements to be false.
Held accountable in a court of law, or in the court of public opinion?
> > I support the right of all citizens to mobilize and
> > campaign in support of social and political issues.
>
> Agreed. And that has nothing to do with the morality of lying, I
> might add.
Good point.
> > Even though I
> > disagree with their position on this issue, I respect their
> > willingness to act on their beliefs and mobilize to action.
>
> Agreed. And that has nothing to do with the morality of lying, I
> might add.
And again.
> > More significantly, the LDS Church leadership discourages its members
> > from questioning its authority, doctrines and beliefs.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Its members
> > are a product of a culture that conditions them to hold their leaders
> > in the highest esteem and to trust their wisdom, knowledge and honesty
> > above any other institution and authority.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > As a formerly active LDS
> > member, it has been my experience that many committed and devout
> > Mormons become incapable of correctly recognizing when their own
> > leaders lie -- even in cases where it abundantly and incontrovertibly
> > clear that lies were told.
>
> Disagree. I think they *are* capable.
Yeah, "capable" isn't the only factor.
> Lazy, yes. Incapable, no.
The biggest problem with my above statement is that I'm characterizing
a group based on personal experience and (biased) anecdotal
observation. But there are other factors I didn't consider that
should have been.
> > I disagree with Duwayne's statement "that the issue of ethics and
> > morality seems completely unimportant to the Mormon
> > apologists."
>
> And I believe their flagrant disregard for truth does make it "seem"
> as though morality is completely unimportant to them.
>
> One thing you may not have noticed is that I used the word "seems"
> deliberately.
Heh, actually I did notice the use of the word "seem" and have been
myself using it much more frequently.
> This is the view from my vantage point. The view may
> be different (indeed *is* different) from your vantage point, but you
> really can't prove that the view from *my* vantage point isn't exactly
> as I've described it.
Any assertion that cannot be falsified on the basis of logic can then
only be falsified on the basis of objective testable evidence. Also,
just because an assertion cannot be falsified does not necessarily
mean that it is true.
> > [Noting the clarification that your use of "apologist"
> > referred more to the likes of Nibley, FAIR, FARMS, not the "lay"
> > members I am describing in the previous paragraph.] I believe that
> > Mormonism is highly moral
>
> Mormonism, as opposed to "Mormons" is about the religion. The
> religion can hardly be called "highly moral." Lying in the name of
> god isn't highly "moral." Conning people out of their money isn't
> "moral."
I think our fundamental disagreement on this point is on the meaning
of the word "moral". I define my meaning below.
> I submit that the only reason you call Mormonism "moral" is because
> you were indoctrinated to think that way.
I'd just like to point out that most of the people who did the
indoctrinating were people I knew pretty well. Some of those people I
still know very well. But, message received.
> > in that it represents a highly codified set
> > of beliefs,
>
> Believing in stupid things (like the Book of Mormon) doesn't make a
> person "moral."?
My definition for morals is that they are codified beliefs, and that
ethical behavior is that which is consistent with such a stated code.
I can disagree with a person's personal morals, yet still consider
them moral and ethical.
> > and that many of its members are highly ethical in that
> > seem to sincerely endeavor to live by its moral code.
>
> I can't think of a *single* element of Mormonism's "moral code" that
> makes a difference in anyone's life that isn't shared by the majority
> of atheists that I know.
>
>
> In fact, of all the supposedly "moral" aspects of Mormonism, I'll bet
> you can't think of a *single* one that is outwardly significant (that
> is, significant to anyone but another Mormon) that wasn't known and
> practiced hundreds of years before Mormonism.
Well see, that's exactly it. I think most Americans have more morals
in common with each other than not, but have a tendency to go apeshit
over the things we disagree on, particularly when it comes to sexual
morality. But it is what it is, and I have chosen my side; equal
rights and separation of church and state.
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > So, that's more along the lines of what I originally wanted to write.
>
> We agree roughly 80% of the time.
Oh at least.
-Xan
Xan Du
Word definitions were as a smokescreen by a religion-backed
organization to exert political power and deny people's rights on the
basis of their own misguided fears and prejudice. As an atheist --
which last I checked was a minority -- I will not stand silent and
watch the US Constitution undermined to *MY* potential future
detriment just because a majority of Californians voted the stinking
thing into law.
-Xan
�R.L.Measures
<8a23bb77-83fe-450f...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, Xan
Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:21=A0pm, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <9f6dbaea-93c8-4831-bf09-2d8cc71b9...@o16g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 20, 2:07=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <a2344508-b8d1-485f-b5c6-f68b3cc8b...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, =
> Xan
> >
> > > > Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 18, 12:35=3D3DA0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail=
> .com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 10:19=3D3DA0pm,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 10:08=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R.L.Measures)=
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <d627a67c-f4d8-46f4-8b88-6ca3663f8...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroup=
> s.co=3D
> > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > Brandon <brandon.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 9:24=3D3D3DA0am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander.=
> ..@gma=3D
> > > il.com=3D3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:04=3D3D3DA0pm, "Gene Fuller" <gene.ful...@mch=
> si.com=3D
> > > > wrot=3D3D
> > > > > e:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, it seems that he has maintained his plausible den=
> iabi=3D
> > > lity=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0of sayn=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > > > anything important. <G>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > That sort of thinking is rather typical for "true believi=
> ng M=3D
> > > ormo=3D3D
> > > > > ns,"
> > > > > > > > > > where ignoring facts/evidence is essential for a "testimo=
> ny."
> >
> > > > > > > > > > After all, I posted a link to the story describing the ev=
> iden=3D
> > > ce
> > > > > > > > > > admitted into court, and the tag team of "You" and "Fulle=
> r" c=3D
> > > an d=3D3D
> > > > > o
> > > > > > > > > > little more than repeat their mantra that it's not "impor=
> tant=3D
> > > ."
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Here's the link to that story, again:
> >
> > > > > > > > > >http://rawstory.com/2010/01/mormon-plausible-deniability-a=
> ntig=3D
> > > ay-e=3D3D
> > > > > ffort/
> >
> > > > > > > > > > What's particularly interesting in this exchange/display =
> is t=3D
> > > hat =3D3D
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > issue of ethics and morality seems completely unimportant=
> to =3D
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Mormon apologists. =3D3D3DA0It doesn't seem to matter at =
> all to=3D
> > > =A0"You"=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0and
> > > > > > > > > > Fuller that their church lied. =3D3D3DA0That doesn't seem=
> to bo=3D
> > > ther t=3D3D
> > > > > hem at
> > > > > > > > > > all. =3D3D3DA0Rather, it seems the most important thing f=
> or "Yo=3D
> > > u" and=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0Fuller
> > > > > > > > > > is that the church succeed in its political agenda -- eve=
> n if=3D
> > > =A0the=3D3D
> > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > > have to lie and cheat to achieve it.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > DuwayneAnderson
> > > > > > > > > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormoni=
> sm a=3D
> > > nd
> > > > > > > > > > science"
> > > > > > > > > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I feel the need to pop out of hiding and thank 1) John Mann=
> ing =3D
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > posting something on-topic and 2) youDuwaynefor continuing =
> to f=3D
> > > ight
> > > > > > > > > the good fight.
> >
> > > > > > > > > The ongoing battle over same-sex marriage in California con=
> tinu=3D
> > > es t=3D3D
> > > > > o
> > > > > > > > > fascinate me on a number of different levels, not only as a=
> wat=3D
> > > ersh=3D3D
> > > > > ed
> > > > > > > > > civil rights issue, but also with respect to the LDS Church=
> 's
> > > > > > > > > continued involvement in what is now really starting to loo=
> k li=3D
> > > ke a
> > > > > > > > > losing battle. =3D3DA0And, I certainly hope they do lose it=
> .
> >
> > > > > > > > > We've discussed lies and lying by LDS leaders in this forum=
> too=3D
> > > =A0man=3D3D
> > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > times to count.
> >
> > > > > > > > =3D3D95 =3D3DA0"... We have the greatest and smoothest liars =
> in the w=3D
> > > orld, th=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > > cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of ch=
> arac=3D
> > > ter =3D3D
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > you can mention."
> > > > > > > > --- =3D3DA0 Brigham Young
> >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > > > > > In the Wild Wild West, these were talents to be admired.
> >
> > > > > > > It's really just you andDuwayneholding the fort these days isn'=
> t
> > > > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > > > -Xan
> >
> > > > > > One shouldn't assume that Measures and I are defending the same f=
> ort.
> > > > > > Measures opposes the LDS Church, as do I, but Measures refuses to
> > > > > > unconditionally condemn genocide
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0I don't condemn anything because it's silly lip-service.
> >
> > ** =A0Does Duwayne think it really matters if either of us condemns anyth=
> ing?
> >
> > > A common refrain of most closet bigots.
> >
> > ** =A0Duwane is not exactly okay with Jews. =A0
> >
> > > It's a shame there were so many Germans during WWII that refused to
> > > "condemn" Nazi atrocities,
> >
> > ** =A0The ones that did got killed Duwayne. =A0The movie "The White Rose"
> > tells the story of what happened to University of Berlin =A0students who
> > spoke out against the Third Reich. =A0
> >
> > >and so many "good" people that refused to
> > > "condemn" racism during the Civil Rights movement in America. =A0And
> > > what a shame that we didn't have more people "condemning" the
> > > holocaust of the American Indians.
> >
> > ** =A0yeah Duwayne, but now that stupid palefaces are loosing their shirt=
> s
> > at Indian casinos, the Indians are getting closer to getting even. =A0
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > (I do) and he opposes marriage for
> > > > > > gays (I don't).
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0I oppose redefining a word to satisfy the whims of any group =
> whethe=3D
> > > r
> > > > they be straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or whether they are into
> > > > consenting beastiality. =3DA0.
> >
> > > News flash for R. L. Measures -- you are using a word (Gay) in a way
> > > that has been "redefined" to mean something it didn't used to mean.
> >
> > ** =A0true, word definitions change, but through usage - not through
> > pressure groups.
>
> Word definitions were as a smokescreen
** Except in France of course, word definitions are determined by common
usage,
>by a religion-backed
> organization to exert political power and deny people's rights on the
> basis of their own misguided fears and prejudice.
** The LdS church for damn sure does not control how I vote Xan.
> As an atheist --
> which last I checked was a minority -
** My take is that you were/are semi-agnostic.
>- I will not stand silent and
> watch the US Constitution undermined to *MY* potential future
> detriment just because a majority of Californians voted the stinking
> thing into law.
** So you are anti-democracy.
>
** are you opposed to CA's Prop 215 medicial marijuana law?
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> ** Does Duwayne think it really matters if either of us condemns anything?
Of course it does. The only way evil men succeed is for good men to
do nothing. Hitler succeeded, in part, because millions of Germans
shared Rich Measure's sentiment that it doesn't really matter whether
or not the average person condemns genocide.
And, of course, Rich Measures *doesn't* unconditionally condemn
genocide.
>
> > A common refrain of most closet bigots.
>
> ** Duwane is not exactly okay with Jews.
Rich, when you equate unconditional condemnation of genocide with
"hates Jews" (as you've done in the past) you exhibit a most
extraordinary act of antisemitism.
> > It's a shame there were so many Germans during WWII that refused to
> > "condemn" Nazi atrocities,
>
> ** The ones that did got killed Duwayne.
Ahhh. So that explains it.
Rich is a coward.
I should have known.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Mar 1, 3:43 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 9:31 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Since we've been debating here I've rethought my original arguments.
>
> > Debating? Who's debating?
>
> The "we" in the above referred to you and me. How would you
> characterize it?
Discussion. You apparently have skin in this game. It's best not to
do that -- makes it harder to change your position when you have an
emotional attachment.
>
>
>
> > > Some weren't fully formed and some were not clearly written. I
> > > appreciate your feedback. I want to briefly reformulate my arguments
> > > in response to the discussion we've been having. Here goes.
>
> > > --------------------------------------
>
> > > The proponents of Prop. 8 made factually incorrect public statements
> > > over their campaign to pass the initiative.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> > > The LDS Church played a
> > > leading role in supporting the Yes on 8 campaign, and actively
> > > organized its efforts. In addition, the LDS Church aggressively
> > > encouraged its members in California to contribute their own time and
> > > money to support the campaign. To the extent that the LDS Church
> > > knowingly disseminated false information to its members and the
> > > general public during the course of the campaign, and continues to do
> > > so, I strongly condemn its leadership.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> > > I am less inclined to so strongly condemn LDS volunteers in California
> > > who did not play a significant role in formulating the message of the
> > > campaign itself.
>
----
> > Partially disagree. They are less culpable than their evil leaders,
> > but they should still be held accountable for falsehoods they spread
> > if, with a reasonable amount of effort, they could determined the
> > statements to be false.
>
> Held accountable in a court of law, or in the court of public opinion?
Look, this whole conversation started with a comment of mine about
moral behavior. I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you. I have no idea
if lying is illegal, and frankly I don't care.
My point -- the point to which you objected -- is that Mormons who
spread lies are acting as if they don't care about moral behavior. My
point is that just because a person is a Mormon they don't get a pass
for telling lies simply because they claim to be sincere liars.
-----
> > This is the view from my vantage point. The view may
> > be different (indeed *is* different) from your vantage point, but you
> > really can't prove that the view from *my* vantage point isn't exactly
> > as I've described it.
>
> Any assertion that cannot be falsified on the basis of logic can then
> only be falsified on the basis of objective testable evidence.
That's a nonsensical statement.
"Pi is an irrational number."
You cannot falsify that statement using logic because the statement is
*true.* But according to you, since the statement cannot be
falsified with logic it can only be falsified on the basis of
objective testable evidence. But it can be proven that it's
*impossible* to prove pi's irrationality using objective testable
evidence; it can only be proven using abstract mathematics -- no
measurement will *ever* prove it.
So your statement (where on earth did you dig it up?) is just plain
old bunk.
> Also,
> just because an assertion cannot be falsified does not necessarily
> mean that it is true.
You're right there. And it doesn't mean it's false, either.
It simply is.
If you were to tell me you "love" your mother or father it would be
pretty pointless of me to try and "prove" your statement either true
or false. I wouldn't bother wasting my time on it.
> > > [Noting the clarification that your use of "apologist"
> > > referred more to the likes of Nibley, FAIR, FARMS, not the "lay"
> > > members I am describing in the previous paragraph.] I believe that
> > > Mormonism is highly moral
>
> > Mormonism, as opposed to "Mormons" is about the religion. The
> > religion can hardly be called "highly moral." Lying in the name of
> > god isn't highly "moral." Conning people out of their money isn't
> > "moral."
>
--
> I think our fundamental disagreement on this point is on the meaning
> of the word "moral".
Furshure.
> I define my meaning below.
>
> > I submit that the only reason you call Mormonism "moral" is because
> > you were indoctrinated to think that way.
>
> I'd just like to point out that most of the people who did the
> indoctrinating were people I knew pretty well. Some of those people I
> still know very well. But, message received.
It's always harder to hold the people we "know well" to the same
standards as a stranger. When that nice, kindly old lady in church --
the one that looks like grandma and has white hair -- says all the
"homosexuals" need to be "put to death" it's hard to think of her as
evil. She just looks so sweet and makes those chocolate chip cookies
that you like so much.
I actually *know* Mormons like that. They *are* sweet. And they are
also murderous bitches and bastards that, if they had their way, would
wreak another holocaust upon the world.
I think one of the reasons that the German holocaust was able to
succeed is that people saw their neighbors and others that they
respected engaged in the activity. It's always so hard to condemn the
activities of one's neighbors. But we must, when they behave
unethically.
>
> > > in that it represents a highly codified set
> > > of beliefs,
>
> > Believing in stupid things (like the Book of Mormon) doesn't make a
> > person "moral."?
>
> My definition for morals is that they are codified beliefs, and that
> ethical behavior is that which is consistent with such a stated code.
So in your opinion human sacrifice is "ethical behavior." After all,
it was part of the codified beliefs of the Aztecs.
Okay. I won't try and prove your opinion is right or wrong.
I'll simply point out that in your universe human sacrifice can be
called ethical behavior, and in your universe Mormon lying isn't
necessarily immoral.
N'uff said.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >- I will not stand silent and
> > watch the US Constitution undermined to *MY* potential future
> > detriment just because a majority of Californians voted the stinking
> > thing into law.
>
> ** So you are anti-democracy.
By Measure's definition the US Constitution is "anti-democracy"
because it protects the civil rights of a minority even if the
majority want to make them sit in the back of the buss, or drink from
"colored only" water fountains.
No question where Rich Measures was during the Civil Rights movement.
Nope. No question at all.
<snip to end>
John Manning
> On Mar 1, 7:08 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> It's always harder to hold the people we "know well" to the same
> standards as a stranger. When that nice, kindly old lady in church --
> the one that looks like grandma and has white hair -- says all the
> "homosexuals" need to be "put to death" it's hard to think of her as
> evil. She just looks so sweet and makes those chocolate chip cookies
> that you like so much.
>
> I actually *know* Mormons like that. They *are* sweet. And they are
> also murderous bitches and bastards that, if they had their way, would
> wreak another holocaust upon the world.
>
When I lived in Utah it was exactly this kind of graphic Mormon
creepiness that freaked me out the most. It's the kind of mind-set you
see in horror movies.
> I think one of the reasons that the German holocaust was able to
> succeed is that people saw their neighbors and others that they
> respected engaged in the activity. It's always so hard to condemn the
> activities of one's neighbors. But we must, when they behave
> unethically.
>
>>>> in that it represents a highly codified set
>>>> of beliefs,
>>> Believing in stupid things (like the Book of Mormon) doesn't make a
>>> person "moral."?
>> My definition for morals is that they are codified beliefs, and that
>> ethical behavior is that which is consistent with such a stated code.
>
> So in your opinion human sacrifice is "ethical behavior." After all,
> it was part of the codified beliefs of the Aztecs.
>
> Okay. I won't try and prove your opinion is right or wrong.
>
> I'll simply point out that in your universe human sacrifice can be
> called ethical behavior, and in your universe Mormon lying isn't
> necessarily immoral.
>
> N'uff said.
>
ouch...
Xan Du
<el snipola crapola I'm staying outta>
> > Word definitions were as a smokescreen
>
> ** Except in France of course, word definitions are determined by common
> usage,
Except of course we're talking about CA and US law, not French
dictionaries.
But I'll humor ya'. Tell me, do the French vote for every definition
of every word used in the French language? Are the contents of a
French dictionary generally binding in French courts of law?
Isn't in fact reality that French-language dictionary editors follow
the same general policy as English-language dictionary editors do when
revising definitions of words? Or asked another way, aren't some
senses of word definitions included in dictionaries because the use of
that sense is common enough to deserve mention regardless of the fact
that other senses of the word are used in the "majority" of cases.
As John Guynn would say, you're being rediculous [sic]. Dictionaries
don't have any bearing on the law. The very interesting and relevant
issue here is conflict between the expressed will of the majority and
the desires of a minority, and how that conflict should be resolved in
US Federal court as interpreted by the US Constitution and relevant
case precedent. It's an opportunity to explore the minds of the
Founding Fathers when they wrote the thing to begin with and
appreciate some of the nuance they (imperfectly) addressed as they
attempted to mitigate the tendency of majority rule to turn into mob
rule.
So while your pedantic appeal to some phantom mechanism whereby
dictionaries are written by a democratic majority in some imaginary
polling booth has provided some interesting conversation and given me
the opportunity to use (and occasionally misuse) some awfully fancy
words, dammit man, you're being obtuse and giving me a headache.
> >by a religion-backed
> > organization to exert political power and deny people's rights on the
> > basis of their own misguided fears and prejudice.
>
> ** The LdS church for damn sure does not control how I voteXan.
I took that as a given when I wrote the statement, Rich. The point
was, they, along with the Catholics and other religious organizations
appear to have been highly influential in getting Prop. 8 passed,
particularly since opinion polls just prior to the election showed
that the majority of Californians were opposed to it. One thing that
likely made a difference was a door-to-door campaign that involved, oh
wasn't it 20,000 LDS volunteers, who targeted undecided and "soft-no"
voters who had been identified by earlier telephone polls. Gavin
Newsome's "it's coming" speech didn't exactly help matters, but
clearly the LDS-backed coalition for Yes on 8 affected the outcome.
I'll tell you a little personal story. For three years I was one of
only 5 white kids in my class of 30, in a school that had about the
same overall ratio. This was a bit of a role reversal, right? In the
larger context of the city and the country, most of the kids in my
class were a minority with a cultural memory of persecution and some
significant amount of stigmatization still present in present day.
Does that sound like a certain religious group we know? (Note, I
realize that this analogy might been seen to diminish the magnitude of
African-American slavery and oppression, that is not my intent. I'm
simply observing some superficial attitude similarities between two
contemporary cultures that otherwise have radically different and
otherwise incomparable histories. I think you and I would agree that
the Mormons had a quite a bit more to do with causing their own
problems did than African slaves did in causing theirs.)
So I learned a little of what it was like to be a minority and I also
learned about bullying. The first year was the worst. I found that
the best strategy when someone came up and say, shoved me for no good
reason, was to simply hit them in the face as hard as I could and hope
that they started bleeding. Sometimes I got my ass kicked, sometimes
the kid ran off crying with his buddies in tow, but after five or so
times of doing this nobody shoved me any more. Eventually I made
friends. Tensions still remained, I still got into the occasional
fight, but overall life was ok by the time I reached the third year in
that school. To this day I harbor some prejudices learned in that
era, though intellectually I consider it wrong to do so. It's natural
to fear and dislike people with different color skin, different
religious beliefs and different sexual alignments, but good people and
good citizens learn to overcome some of their natural and/or learned
instincts and behaviors.
That's where I'm coming from on this issue. My sympathies for the
GBLT community on this issue is as a member of the minority of
atheists in this country who doesn't want to be bullied around by the
religious majority who is trying to impose a version of morality based
on 4,000 year-old codes of laws written by people living in a desert,
or what some French word meant 700 years ago. We're Americans, we
hate the French, I mean really! <g>
This is me punching a bullying majority, who has shoved some friends
and family of mine, in the nose. I'm normally content to let Mormons
do and believe what they want, but I don't want them or their like-
minded allies to get the idea that they could ever be successful at
injecting other purely religious beliefs into our imperfect, but
reasonably secular and equitable legal code. That's what free
democratic societies are about, live and let live but fight oppression
and mob rule when it occurs.
Besides, Dubya's Neo-Con puppet masters have already set us back far
enough on stem cell research and costly Crusades in the Middle East as
it is. In the overall political scheme of things, do you really want
to give those evil bastards any additional glimmer of hope that Obama,
Reid and Pelosi aren't already handing them on a silver platter?
> > As an atheist --
> > which last I checked was a minority -
>
> ** My take is that you were/are semi-agnostic.
That's what I said when I first left LDS-dom and first started
participating here. But these days the word that best describes my
religious alignment is atheist.
> >- I will not stand silent and
> > watch the US Constitution undermined to *MY* potential future
> > detriment just because a majority of Californians voted the stinking
> > thing into law.
>
> ** So you are anti-democracy.
No. However majorities have had a historic tendency to oppress
minorities and/or make laws that violate Constitutional rights.
That's one reason why we have courts.
It occurs to me that you're just the kind of guy who would vote "no"
on an issue in a ballot initiative, but be opposed to a court
overturning the will of the majority on the same issue. I was
disappointed when Prop. 8 first passed, but I initially supported the
CA Supreme Court's decision to uphold it on the basis that their doing
so recognized the will of the people and supported "democracy" in the
form of the initiative process. On much further reading and review, I
have changed my mind on this *particular* issue. On others, I would
tend to want to side with the majority, especially if my own interests
were aligned with them. I try to be fair, but have my limits.
> ** are you opposed to CA's Prop 215 medicial marijuana law?
I'm not terribly familiar with it actually. In general I support
marijuana legalization for any use at the Federal level as I
personally find its intoxicating effects more pleasurable and its
after-effects less deleterious than ethanol. Also, the fact that
marijuana is not legal for recreational use in most of the country
perpetuates an underground economy and supports criminal enterprise
similar to the situation that Prohibition created for the mob --
albeit to a lesser degree. By any objective measure, though I am
certainly not always objective, it would seem that legalizing
marijuana would be a net benefit to society, yet it remains mostly
illegal.
The tax revenues from a legalized marijuana sales certainly wouldn't
hurt the Federal budget deficit, as would reduced expenses for
interdiction efforts, prosecution and incarceration. But it might not
help the unemployment rate, other than if we unemployed were stoned
all the time we might stop looking for work, thereby actually lowering
the unemployment tally. But were marijuana legal, I could then at
least be happily unemployed -- I have abstained from illegal usage of
late so as not to fail any pre-employment urine tests I might be
required to take.
All that said, and confessed, Prop. 8 removed rights, Prop 215 granted
them. Allowing same-sex marriage has exactly zero potential to cause
harm to opposite-sex married folk, whereas one could argue that
driving while stoned has potential to harm everyone -- though not any
more so than falling-down drunks do. So, they're not exactly
equivalent situations, but I have been happy to share my position on
the issue.
-Xan "do unto others before others can do unto" Du (unless it involves
the jungles Southeast Asia, phantom weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi
deserts, the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Did I miss any?)
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
You
<7f78f5c8-a00d-4722...@b7g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't it fun to watch the Nay-Sayers ripping each other to shreds, over
who is more righteous, when it comes to what they think they know.....
Very entertaining....
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Isn't it fun to watch the Nay-Sayers ripping each other to shreds, over
> who is more righteous,
Oh, it's very funny.
I particularly like watching the Mormons tell the Fundamentalist
Christians how their baptisms are not valid since they haven't been
done using the Mormon priesthood.
Or watching the Mormons tell the Catholics they are the "Great and
Abominable Church of the Devil."
But the real entertainment comes from clowns like Mit Romney, who talk
about morality while urging others to reject universal health care.
> when it comes to what they think they know.....
>
> Very entertaining....
I agree. Thanks for pointing that out.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and