Is the Mormon Leadership in a hidden panic?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_desert_vulture
_Emeritus
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:07 am

Post by _desert_vulture »

marg wrote:How are you different than the run of the mill TBM's when you say things like in your first sentence above...that your primary issue is whether "marriage was indeed commanded by God" You sound very much like an individual well indoctrinated who on some issues involving the church willingly suspends critical thinking in lieu of acceptance of the dictates of the church. So when church authority makes claims on behalf of a god, a TBM willingly, non critically accepts with little if any questioning. by the way, swearing is not acceptable in this forum. If you feel the need to swear you can do so, in the lower forum, (don't remember its name)

Obviously, you don't know me. Which would explain why you have confused me with a run of the mill TBM. I am an individual that examines issues objectively, without a set agenda. I have learned of others on this forum such as Runtu and Truth Dancer, that take a similar approach. I merely mentioned that there IS evidence that Joseph Smith married Fanny Alger. I didn't say that it was persuasive. I didn't assert that it was conclusive. But, nevertheless the evidence does exist. To assume that there is no evidence of the marriage is to shut one's mind off, and become similar to a TBM.

As far as swearing, since this is a PG-13 forum, I have modified my initial post and reduced the number of f-bombs to 1, as per PG-13 rules, and the other swear words are completely harmonious with a PG-13 rating.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Polygamy Porter wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:Probably about 30% world wide. it varies from area to area. In my US ward and stake it is about 80% retention.
80% retention of CONVERTS?

I'd think not.

80% of the current membership, sure... Nothing binds like family.



Believe it or not that is about what we are running in my US ward and stake for NEW CONVERTS.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Jason Bourne wrote:Believe it or not that is about what we are running in my US ward and stake for NEW CONVERTS.


How many converts in your ward/stake Jason?
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Bond...James Bond wrote:How many converts in your ward/stake Jason?


Converts to my ward last year were 22. Stake was about 60.
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by _Mercury »

Jason Bourne wrote:Converts to my ward last year were 22. Stake was about 60.


And the year previous to that? How many remain today?
Last edited by FAST Enterprise [Crawler] on Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Converts to my ward last year were 22. Stake was about 60.


Wow. That's amazing. In my ward, we're lucky if we get 1 new convert a year. Usually it's a new spouse for one of our youth, so our convert activity rate is pretty high.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

VegasRefugee wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:Converts to my ward last year were 22. Stake was about 60.


And the year previous to that? How many remain today?



We have had between 15-20 or so baptisms a year over the past five years accepting one, where we had 5.

Of those over the past five year my guess is we are at about 65% still involved. A number have moved elsewhere so I do not know if they are active. The 80% is for people in the past year.
_marg

Post by _marg »

desert_vulture wrote: Obviously, you don't know me. Which would explain why you have confused me with a run of the mill TBM. I am an individual that examines issues objectively, without a set agenda. I have learned of others on this forum such as Runtu and Truth Dancer, that take a similar approach. I merely mentioned that there IS evidence that Joseph Smith married Fanny Alger. I didn't say that it was persuasive. I didn't assert that it was conclusive. But, nevertheless the evidence does exist. To assume that there is no evidence of the marriage is to shut one's mind off, and become similar to a TBM.


From what I've read so far from you, you don't come close to the objectivity of Runtu and Truth Dancer, nor to their excellent critical thinking. Previously you had said The primary issue to me is not whether or not they were married, but whether or not their marriage was indeed commanded of God or an adulterous affair posing as a marriage.

Your words indicate lack of objectivity and that you are well indoctrinated into a religious frame of mind. Assuming you mean what you say, it appears you believe that if a church authority makes a claim that god commands..that it actually means in reality... indeed a god commands. Therefore evidence, no matter how slight or unpersuasive of a command from God as claimed by the church, as in your sealing evidence of Fanny to J. Smith which you seem keen to argue for...is used to justify resultant actions.

If you want to illustrate your critical thinking...explain why you think a God would command J. Smith to have sex with Fanny behind Emma's back without her consent. And explain why a god would command J. Smith to engage in polygamous sexual relationships with many women.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

marg wrote:
desert_vulture wrote: Obviously, you don't know me. Which would explain why you have confused me with a run of the mill TBM. I am an individual that examines issues objectively, without a set agenda. I have learned of others on this forum such as Runtu and Truth Dancer, that take a similar approach. I merely mentioned that there IS evidence that Joseph Smith married Fanny Alger. I didn't say that it was persuasive. I didn't assert that it was conclusive. But, nevertheless the evidence does exist. To assume that there is no evidence of the marriage is to shut one's mind off, and become similar to a TBM.


From what I've read so far from you, you don't come close to the objectivity of Runtu and Truth Dancer, nor to their excellent critical thinking. Previously you had said The primary issue to me is not whether or not they were married, but whether or not their marriage was indeed commanded of God or an adulterous affair posing as a marriage.

Your words indicate lack of objectivity and that you are well indoctrinated into a religious frame of mind. Assuming you mean what you say, it appears you believe that if a church authority makes a claim that god commands..that it actually means in reality... indeed a god commands. Therefore evidence, no matter how slight or unpersuasive of a command from God as claimed by the church, as in your sealing evidence of Fanny to J. Smith which you seem keen to argue for...is used to justify resultant actions.

If you want to illustrate your critical thinking...explain why you think a God would command J. Smith to have sex with Fanny behind Emma's back without her consent. And explain why a god would command J. Smith to engage in polygamous sexual relationships with many women.



Marg,

I know DV from here and elsewhere. You are reading him wrong. If you were not so apt to pounce anytime anyone mentions God then maybe you would be more fun to discuss things with. The amazing thing is you think you are such a great critical thinker, but your predetermined attitude that anyone who gives God a chance automatically lack critical thinking makes you as irrational as you think they are and even more strident.

Lighten up.
_desert_vulture
_Emeritus
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:07 am

Post by _desert_vulture »

Jason Bourne wrote:Marg,

I know DV from here and elsewhere. You are reading him wrong. If you were not so apt to pounce anytime anyone mentions God then maybe you would be more fun to discuss things with. The amazing thing is you think you are such a great critical thinker, but your predetermined attitude that anyone who gives God a chance automatically lack critical thinking makes you as irrational as you think they are and even more strident.

Lighten up.

Thanks Bourne. That scope does help you see clearly. Is that a Leupold?
Post Reply