Where do we draw the line?

[_why me]

Let's use the reporting of Church Finances as an example. As an LSD person it makes all the sense in the world to me that they would want to be as up front as possible to show the world that they are squeaky clean. I don't understand why they don't do this and I find the multitude of reasons other member have advanced to defend the Church not doing so to be peculiar, given that they always are asking us to put forth a good image as members. What is most peculiar though is the inference that this lack of financial forthrightness is somehow sacred. Can't they see that this would take one of the critic's strong arguments off the table by doing an annual report? Nothing fancy, just the same simple report that other Churches put out.

I suppose that this can happen. But the critic will toothpick his or her way through it looking for holes where holes may not exist. However, I see nothing wrong with the principal. Maybe the lord wants to keep it underwraps for the time being. But I am sure that everything is on the up and up. The books are opened to those who the law says they should be opened to.

[_beastie]

Substance and style do go together rather well. But as you can see, I said style because the critic, although his or her substance may be flawed, if said in a good tone and in a respectful tone, will encourage debate and dialogue. And yes, it is the language and tone that are confrontation, and not the substance. Do you get it now? Better language and tone encourage debate and dialogue but hostile tone and language encourages only a hyperventing of the brain and encourages nothing.

Of course the same is true for believers. So the same standard should be applied to both.

[_Mephitus]

Let's use the reporting of Church Finances as an example. As an LSD person it makes all the sense in the world to me that they would want to be as up front as possible to show the world that they are squeaky clean. I don't understand why they don't do this and I find the multitude of reasons other member have advanced to defend the Church not doing so to be peculiar, given that they always are asking us to put forth a good image as members. What is most peculiar though is the inference that this lack of financial forthrightness is somehow sacred. Can't they see that this would take one of the critic's strong arguments off the table by doing an annual report? Nothing fancy, just the same simple report that other Churches put out.

I suppose that this can happen. But the critic will toothpick his or her way through it looking for holes where holes may not exist. However, I see nothing wrong with the principal. Maybe the lord wants to keep it underwraps for the time being. But I am sure that everything is on the up and up. The books are opened to those who the law says they should be opened to.

just a quick question: What is your personal opinion on the churches that have completely open books and are willing to share them?

[_harmony]

To tell you the truth, it makes no difference to me if a critic does not like this or that. It is how the the delivery is delivered that bothers me. All can be debated in a dignified and meaningful way. And there will always be interpretations...but it is the use of language and tone that are confrontational.

So it's all about style, and substance doesn't matter? It doesn't matter what you say, it matters how you say it?

Pardon me, but I think that the substance of the message is much more important than the style of the delivery. Address the message, not the style or the deliverer.

Substance and style do go together rather well. But as you can see, I said style because the critic, although his or her substance may be flawed, if said in a good tone and in a respectful tone, will encourage debate and dialogue. And yes, it is the language and tone that are confrontation, and not the substance. Do you get it now? Better language and tone encourage debate and dialogue but hostile tone and language encourages only a hyperventing of the brain and encourages nothing.

Critics are not their brothers keepers. If a defender responds to a critic with hyperventilating etc, it's not the critics fault. Defenders are responsible for their response. Both sides should stick to the message and leave off with the personal attacks, but to say that critics are responsible for the tone while defenders are simply reacting is bogus-MAD thinking.

And defenders stubstance has just as much chance of being flawed as a critics. You are not in a position to decide the relative merits of the critics argument, since you are a defender.

The message itself is what's important, the tone is trivial in comparison. Some people have difficult communicating, but that doesn't mean their message is unimportant or difficult to comprehend. Defenders and critics alike need to spend less time on the style and more time on the substance. That you see this as you do shows your bias.

[_harmony]

Let's use the reporting of Church Finances as an example. As an LSD person it makes all the sense in the world to me that they would want to be as up front as possible to show the world that they are squeaky clean. I don't understand why they don't do this and I find the multitude of reasons other member have advanced to defend the Church not doing so to be peculiar, given that they always are asking us to put forth a good image as members. What is most peculiar though is the inference that this lack of financial forthrightness is somehow sacred. Can't they see that this would take one of the critic's strong arguments off the table by doing an annual report? Nothing fancy, just the same simple report that other Churches put out.

I suppose that this can happen.

When?

But the critic will toothpick his or her way through it looking for holes where holes may not exist.

So?

However, I see nothing wrong with the principal.

Excellent. Join the club.

Maybe the lord wants to keep it underwraps for the time being.

Maybe the leaders are the ones who want to keep the finances secret, and the Lord has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

But I am sure that everything is on the up and up.

No you aren't. You don't know that, because the books aren't open.

The books are opened to those who the law says they should be opened to.

Only faithful LDS auditors are allowed to see them. The church settles any legal argument out of court rather than allow outsiders and judges to see the finances.

[_Sam Harris]

In a recent thread, why me suggested that in defending the true church of God, integrity is not necessary. He considers himself to be in a war, so he will use whatever means are necessary. I hope I'm not misinterpreting, but that was the gist of it, as I recall.

Anyway, I thought about my own life, both as an apologist and later as a disaffected apostate. I remember not being completely honest with investigators on my mission (I papered over the priesthood ban with a black investigator, in one episode I'm pretty ashamed of). The only time I was ever accused of dishonesty on these kinds of boards was when I went on FAIR to try and work out my issues. I think I was leaning towards leaving the church, but I was genuinely trying to work things out. But I started posting on RfM at the same time, and that was taken as an admission that I was, in fact, already an apostate and misrepresenting myself on FAIR. I've struggled over that, but in the end, if I was dishonest, I've since repented of it.

But since why me said that the other day, I realized that nothing less than complete integrity and honesty are required. I can't expect to discuss truth if I am not truthful. So, for me, the line is pretty clear: total honesty and integrity. bcspace said the other day that being "anti-mormon" automatically presupposes lying and sensationalizing. For me, the truth is good enough, and Mormonism does not need sensationalizing for honest people to determine its truth or lack thereof.

Just a thought.

Hey Runtu,

A lot of the people like the ones you mentioned that you're dealing with are struggling with the knowledge that they have been duped. They have the "truth" in front of them, but it's far less painful to accept the substitute and keep up their way of life. Folks like that are afraight of the light, afraid of being responsible for their own destiny. They are afraid of having to interperet for themselves what it is they think God is telling them. So they subordinate to others. Anyone who does otherwise and is happy is a threat to their status quo.

If they have to lie themselves, if they have to hurt people, if they have to do any of the things that they condemn others for, in the end it is ok, because they have the guarantee of being "God's chosen", and in the end God will overlook all the blood on their hands and at their feet that was shed for the cause of God's goodness. It's sick...but it's their reality.

Such people should be pitied.

[_Alter Idem]

OK so you are a man with a girlie avatar. Got it.

And not a girlie man as some of you are, right.

BC, is your avatar Lady Eboshi from "Princess Mononoke"? Great movie.

I liked "The Village" and I'm not one of those who believes evil is all in our heads. Too bad the movie was poorly marketed-same with "Lady in the Water"..they were advertised to appeal to an audience expecting Horror and they were not not Horror.