Equality wrote: If that's the argument (and it's not at all clear that it is, as the article appears to be nothing more than a series of strung-together non sequiturs)
There was no "argument." (Not everything is an argument.) Hence, there were no non sequiturs, and could not have been.
Daniel Peterson's article wrote:That was, of course, also the year in which, Latter-day Saints believe, the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, launching the Restoration of the gospel and opening its final dispensation.
Again, coincidence?
Maybe.
But maybe, too, it's part of a divine plan that includes, but is not limited to, the restoration of the church.
Don't be coy, Daniel. Which side do you come down on: coincidence or divine plan?
Daniel Peterson's article wrote:That was, of course, also the year in which, Latter-day Saints believe, the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, launching the Restoration of the gospel and opening its final dispensation.
Again, coincidence?
Maybe.
But maybe, too, it's part of a divine plan that includes, but is not limited to, the restoration of the church.
Daniel two questions if I may: 1. Is that the year that you personally believe the Father & the Son appeared to Joseph Smith? 2. What's the earliest dated documentary evidence that talks about the Father AND the son appearing to Joseph Smith?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Yes, intriguing indeed. Take two simultaneous events, present them to the reader, and then encourage them to imagine all the possible ways that they might be connected. If they happen to conclude that A really is connected to B and that A is more likely to be true because of B, well, that is the conclusion of the reader. There was no actual "argument" presented and therefore nothing that can or should be defended.
Although the title given to the article by the editors is a bit misaligned with the actual theme of the article itself, here is my latest assault on basic reason and human decency:
Religion doesn't look too bad by contrast to Nazism? Ok, I'll give you that one. Such a low bar you apologists are setting for yourselves these days.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Thank you for the link to your article, Daniel. I haven't much time, so two very quick points.
In the article, you say, "...the millennium that just closed was heavily influenced at its end by Marxism and by a related ideology that went under the names of fascism and 'National Socialism' or Nazism."
Nazism had no relationship to Marxism. Certainly, this must be an unintended error.
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism had huge methodological problems that were noted when it came out about five years ago. You must be aware of some of these.
Thanks again for the link. And in the midst of BYU Education Week, too!
I think it was a good article, and in my personal experience (which I suppose doesn't "prove" anything), "religious people" do tend to be more charitable. There are very notable exceptions, but as Dan pointed out in his article, many of these "unbelievers" were raised in "religious homes", and though losing their beliefs, maintained what they they were taught, as far as morality and giving are concerned, because of the way they were raised, by "religious parents".