Hades wrote:I just find it hard to swallow that people actually pay a billion dollar corporation to work for it. She paid the church 10% of her income her whole life and now she's giving her retirement too.
I'm sure Nauvoo would be a cool place to pass through on your way to someplace that really is cool, as you spend your retirement on yourself.
It's her retirement. Good for her, that she's doing something she enjoys.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Hades wrote:I just find it hard to swallow that people actually pay a billion dollar corporation to work for it. She paid the church 10% of her income her whole life and now she's giving her retirement too.
I'm sure Nauvoo would be a cool place to pass through on your way to someplace that really is cool, as you spend your retirement on yourself.
It's her retirement. Good for her, that she's doing something she enjoys.
You just have to wonder why people feel a need to sell their souls to the church. It would be funner to sell your soul to the devil and it might be more productive.
Back on topic, Mormonism will get you alive or dead. You will be dead dunked after you're dead and now it seems you can testify after death. Mormonism is like the gift that keeps on giving, even beyond the grave.
Hades wrote:You just have to wonder why people feel a need to sell their souls to the church.
Somehow I doubt she thinks of it that way.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Several living individuals have been invited to submit their testimonies to MST. I assume that Prof Peterson thought that they might agree, but allowed for the possibility that one or more would not. The vast majority agreed to having their testimonies used in this way. A number did not accept the invitation, for whatever reason seemed good to them - I assume that each individual is the arbiter of "good" in this case. A number of dead individuals are having testimonies "constructed" from published works (please correct me if I misinterpret), or perhaps even from spoken or written testimonies. The constructed testimonies of the dead are being published/to be published on MST.
Is there the slightest possibility that one of the dead individuals ( if asked while alive (;=) ) might have refused the invitation? Even if their families thought that it was a good idea? Even if they had testified in life?
If so, it suggests to me that it may not be reasonable to use the testimonies of the dead, since they have not had the opportunity to determine if they support the use being made of them.
Otherwise, why not also put up "testimonies" from living individuals (based on what they have said/written) without asking. After all, you don't need permission to quote anyone, living or dead, do you? You might even be able to construct testimonies for the living people who refused the invitation.
Is it just that the living can say whether they approve, but the dead cannot?
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
Simon Belmont wrote: It's much more logically sound than your position of "anyone who believes in Mormonism is unable to think critically."
Many members are able to think critically. That is why so many have been able to recognize, when the evidence has been presented to them, that the church is not true. :)
DrW wrote:You really should know better than to take such a position on a public forum. You are either naïve or a real glutton for punishment
It's much more logically sound than your position of "anyone who believes in Mormonism is unable to think critically."
Simon,
I don't think your are accurately reflecting what I said. What I said (and will say again) is that anyone who accepts as fact all of the truth claims of the LDS Church has problems with critical thinking when it comes to deciding what they believe.
Given the weight of evidence against these claims, their internal inconsistencies, the fact that many are demonstrably false (and in many cases downright silly), I would think that such a statement would be accepted without much argument.
After all, when challenged about the silliness and irrationality of their beliefs, what I hear as the most common response from believers I talk with is something like:
"I understand that my religious beliefs are not supported by the facts and may even be irrational, but these are my beliefs nonetheless. While I have no good evidence for most of them, I still have faith that they are true."
Is this logically sound?
Really?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW wrote:Given the weight of evidence against these claims, their internal inconsistencies, the fact that many are demonstrably false (and in many cases downright silly), I would think that such a statement would be accepted without much argument.
The church's claims are not challenged by the majority of TBMs, because tradition is so strong and testimony is so imbedded. The idea of actually opening oneself up to evidence against the church is simply not ever considered.
That which is not challenged is never acknowledged as inconsistent.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Has anyone bothered to look at the Arrington testimony lately? It appears to have been *heavily* edited. As I recall, the original posted testimony was just one long block of text. This, though, is a bunch of snippets gathered together. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but it looks like they went in there and made some significant changes.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:Has anyone bothered to look at the Arrington testimony lately? It appears to have been *heavily* edited. As I recall, the original posted testimony was just one long block of text. This, though, is a bunch of snippets gathered together. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but it looks like they went in there and made some significant changes.
Somebody did.
Clear back on Tuesday, 2 August 2011, as announced here on this thread at 8:09 AM that day.
Passages suggested by Nevo, in a note posted on this thread on Monday, 1 August 2011, at 11:16 PM, were incorporated into the entry and his suggestions were gratefully acknowledged here.