Simon, a new perspective

[_consiglieri]

Liz, I did not mean that as a personal attack. Nor do I mean the comment I am about to make as a personal attack. But after a while, it gets old having internet Mormons and apologists tell former believers that they don't know and/or understand what the Church teaches.

I just got done listening to the Mormon Stories podcast with Terryl Givens over the weekend and really liked how he termed the Freemasonry elements of the endowment as the "delivery system," which could just as easily have been done with boyscout signs and handshakes.

(Technically it was Dehlin who came up with the "delivery system" analogy and Givens agreed.)

I personally think there is more symbolism in the freemasonry stuff that pertains to the temple than the boyscouts would have, but it is a good idea nonetheless.



All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Some Schmo]

Look, there are tenets of the LDS faith that I don't agree with, either. You should know that by now. ;-)

I do.

I just disagree with "throwing out the baby with the bath water".

Me too. What I'd really like to see is a reframing of the good in religion to something more secular and accessible to all, no matter what each person's worldview might be.

I think we can all agree that it is a worthy endeavor to attempt to eliminate the bad fruits of religion. We probably only disagree on how big a barrel of rotten fruit it is.

A reformation of ALL religion is a pretty big project. I don't know that it could realistically be done.

Nothing worthwhile ever came easy.

However, I do respect your position on this because it's consistent.

Thanks, liz.

And FYI: I understand that these are personal matters to you, and that sometimes, my blunt approach feels disrespectful. However, it is exactly because I do respect you that I don't sugarcoat what I think.

And I certainly respect your willingness to sit through a discussion that causes you discomfort.

[_Yoda]

Thanks, liz.

And FYI: I understand that these are personal matters to you, and that sometimes, my blunt approach feels disrespectful. However, it is exactly because I do respect you that I don't sugarcoat what I think.

And I certainly respect your willingness to sit through a discussion that causes you discomfort.

Thanks, Schmo.

I just feel bad because I think that in some cases, like in the conversation with Darth, we are often talking past each other when we actually agree on far more than we disagree on.

;-)

[_sock puppet]

However, I do respect your position on this because it's consistent.

Thanks, liz.

And FYI: I understand that these are personal matters to you, and that sometimes, my blunt approach feels disrespectful. However, it is exactly because I do respect you that I don't sugarcoat what I think.

And I certainly respect your willingness to sit through a discussion that causes you discomfort.

Bull's eye, Some Schmoe. The context of the discussion in this thread about tolerating/respect for religious beliefs is not about any religion being banned in the U.S. or anyone else. It is in the context of interpersonal communications, such as postings here on MDB.

Ethics is the very secularized version of religion that I think you might be thinking. People do not need to fear an angry god, and eternal punishment or damnation to follow the golden rule, and they do not need to support an organization of phony men claiming god tells them important messages for all mankind. The organization is what the problem is, it is where the corruption lies. Secular ethics on the other hand are derived from logical conclusions drawn from the basic premises of the golden rule.