Turns out - rcrocket is a bishop -

[_asbestosman]

Ok thinking about this maybe it in not hypocrisy. But it is certainly disingenuous.

I don't know that I'd even go that far. I believe Jesus used the Pharisees standards against them when speaking about healing on the Sabbath. To do so, he mentioned that if an ox falls in the mire on the sabbath, they would save it. Isn't a man better than an ox?

From that, I think Jesus was using their stated standard about Sabbath observance (the extremeness of which He rejected), and showing that in reality they didn't live that way either and that furthermore they should not judge his manner of Sabbath observance to be evil for doing what they more or less did themselves--except what He did was better (healing a man instead of an ox).

[_beastie]

Not the same thing. How can you judge someone by a standard refuse to accept?

You're not judging them for the failure to adhere to a standard you do not accept. You are judging them for failing to adhere to their own standards.

[_rcrocket]

The problem in these discussion is always the definition of "nasty things". There are many believers whose identities are so enmeshed within Mormonism that any serious criticism of Mormonism feels "nasty". On another thread, I have discussed whether or not Joseph Smith deliberately endangered people's lives to protect a real estate endeavor. For believers with enmeshed identities, that feels like a personal attack, a horrible thing to say.

Frankly, I think anyone who posts with their real name, regardless of the content of their posting, is taking a significant risk. It is particularly irresponsible of people who have children living with them.

Moreover, there are people who are forced to pretend to be believers due to family issues. I firmly believe it is not outside the realm of possibility for zealous believers to "report" on the activity of such a closet doubter to church authorities. In fact, it happened to my boyfriend.

Now I know that Bob smugly asserts people ought not to live double lives in this way. But perhaps Bob has never faced the real risk of losing one's spouse and children over losing faith in the church.

True, the invention of masks made it lots safer to commit rapes and rob banks. The invention of phones made it a lot easire to make prank and obscene phone calls. Similarly, the invention of the internet made it a lot safer to defame persons, impugn their integrity, hurl vulgarities at them, and still be safe about it.

It terms of the "double life" issue, I have no problem whatsoever with a person entertaining doubts and disbeliefs about matters of faith but "going through the motions" to retain one's family. No qualms on my part. But when that person comes into a public place, with the bank robber's mask. to defame, injure and criticize, on the one hand, while putting on a facade on the other hand, then God and society will condemn them.

rcrocket

[_beastie]

True, the invention of masks made it lots safer to commit rapes and rob banks. The invention of phones made it a lot easire to make prank and obscene phone calls. Similarly, the invention of the internet made it a lot safer to defame persons, impugn their integrity, hurl vulgarities at them, and still be safe about it.

It terms of the "double life" issue, I have no problem whatsoever with a person entertaining doubts and disbeliefs about matters of faith but "going through the motions" to retain one's family. No qualms on my part. But when that person comes into a public place, with the bank robber's mask. to defame, injure and criticize, on the one hand, while putting on a facade on the other hand, then God and society will condemn them.

So if, prior to their "exodus", a member of the Heaven's Gate cult who lost belief, anonymously posted critical information about the Heaven's Gate community, even accusing its leaders of plotting mass suicide - would you still be this critical of them?

[_Jason Bourne]

The problem in these discussion is always the definition of "nasty things". There are many believers whose identities are so enmeshed within Mormonism that any serious criticism of Mormonism feels "nasty". On another thread, I have discussed whether or not Joseph Smith deliberately endangered people's lives to protect a real estate endeavor. For believers with enmeshed identities, that feels like a personal attack, a horrible thing to say.

Frankly, I think anyone who posts with their real name, regardless of the content of their posting, is taking a significant risk. It is particularly irresponsible of people who have children living with them.

Moreover, there are people who are forced to pretend to be believers due to family issues. I firmly believe it is not outside the realm of possibility for zealous believers to "report" on the activity of such a closet doubter to church authorities. In fact, it happened to my boyfriend.

Now I know that Bob smugly asserts people ought not to live double lives in this way. But perhaps Bob has never faced the real risk of losing one's spouse and children over losing faith in the church.

True, the invention of masks made it lots safer to commit rapes and rob banks. The invention of phones made it a lot easire to make prank and obscene phone calls. Similarly, the invention of the internet made it a lot safer to defame persons, impugn their integrity, hurl vulgarities at them, and still be safe about it.

It terms of the "double life" issue, I have no problem whatsoever with a person entertaining doubts and disbeliefs about matters of faith but "going through the motions" to retain one's family. No qualms on my part. But when that person comes into a public place, with the bank robber's mask. to defame, injure and criticize, on the one hand, while putting on a facade on the other hand, then God and society will condemn them.

rcrocket

You might. Some in society might. But God won't especially when the Church they attend allows them no room to talk about honest concerns with out threat of dismissal. I think God might be pretty condemning towards those in that culture that created such a threatening environment.

[_rcrocket]

So if, prior to their "exodus", a member of the Heaven's Gate cult who lost belief, anonymously posted critical information about the Heaven's Gate community, even accusing its leaders of plotting mass suicide - would you still be this critical of them?

Any argument may be reduced to the absurd. I am not impressed.

[_asbestosman]

So if, prior to their "exodus", a member of the Heaven's Gate cult who lost belief, anonymously posted critical information about the Heaven's Gate community, even accusing its leaders of plotting mass suicide - would you still be this critical of them?

Don't forget about the servant of Helaman outing Kishkumen:

Helaman 2:6 And it came to pass as he went forth towards the judgment-seat to destroy Helaman, behold one of the servants of Helaman, having been out by night, and having obtained, through disguise, a knowledge of those plans which had been laid by this band to destroy Helaman—
7 And it came to pass that he met Kishkumen, and he gave unto him a sign; therefore Kishkumen made known unto him the object of his desire, desiring that he would conduct him to the judgment-seat that he might murder Helaman.
8 And when the servant of Helaman had known all the heart of Kishkumen, and how that it was his object to murder, and also that it was the object of all those who belonged to his band to murder, and to rob, and to gain power, (and this was their secret plan, and their combination) the servant of Helaman said unto Kishkumen: Let us go forth unto the judgment-seat.
9 Now this did please Kishkumen exceedingly, for he did suppose that he should accomplish his design; but behold, the servant of Helaman, as they were going forth unto the judgment-seat, did stab Kishkumen even to the heart, that he fell dead without a groan. And he ran and told Helaman all the things which he had seen, and heard, and done.
10 And it came to pass that Helaman did send forth to take this band of robbers and secret murderers, that they might be executed according to the law.

But there is a difference here in that Helaman's servant didn't remain anonymous (even if we never learned his name. . . )

[_The Nehor]

Not the same thing. How can you judge someone by a standard refuse to accept?

You're not judging them for the failure to adhere to a standard you do not accept. You are judging them for failing to adhere to their own standards.

Hardly fair, this means those with high ethical standards who do their best and fail repeatedly are judged harshly while moral reprobates proud of their perversion get off free.

[_beastie]

Any argument may be reduced to the absurd. I am not impressed.

This is your coy way of refusing to give the only sane answer, of course.

Just how do you decide which belief systems merit this protection, and which don't?

[_asbestosman]

Not the same thing. How can you judge someone by a standard refuse to accept?

You're not judging them for the failure to adhere to a standard you do not accept. You are judging them for failing to adhere to their own standards.

Hardly fair, this means those with high ethical standards who do their best and fail repeatedly are judged harshly while moral reprobates proud of their perversion get off free.

I believe there are other meta-standards which society in general holds. Something along the lines of the Golden Rule. Those who do not hold such standards are those who, in my opinion, we rightly judge as dispicable.