Mormon Brainwashing

[_Dr. Shades]

So because people have alternative ideas that don't match your own beliefs, it must be brainwashing?

No. An alternative idea is one thing. An idea that would be automatically rejected if it was part of the other guy's religion, but somehow is magically acceptable when it's part of one's own religion, even if it's the exact same idea, is evidence of some form of brainwashing, indoctrination, or what have you.

Wow, your as big a jerk as ever.

Of course I am.

Yes it was a suprise. Perhaps you need to return to school.. Even in the 21st century, contraceptives are only really 95% effective. That means if a couple is having sex for a long time, the odds are they eventually have to fall into that 5% (shock!)

It depends on the form of birth control. The Amtrack method may have that low of a success rate, but the proper use of a high-quality condom, on the other hand, has more like a 0.01% failure rate.

Fact is no one has died from Mormonism and its teachings.

Ever hear of the Martin or Willie handcart companies?

[_jskains]

So because people have alternative ideas that don't match your own beliefs, it must be brainwashing?

No. An alternative idea is one thing. An idea that would be automatically rejected if it was part of the other guy's religion, but somehow is magically acceptable when it's part of one's own religion, even if it's the exact same idea, is evidence of some form of brainwashing, indoctrination, or what have you.

Wow, your as big a jerk as ever.

Of course I am.

Yes it was a suprise. Perhaps you need to return to school.. Even in the 21st century, contraceptives are only really 95% effective. That means if a couple is having sex for a long time, the odds are they eventually have to fall into that 5% (shock!)

It depends on the form of birth control. The Amtrack method may have that low of a success rate, but the proper use of a high-quality condom, on the other hand, has more like a 0.01% failure rate.

Do you know my situation or my wife's or do you think you can take your judgemental nose out of my bedroom?

JMS

[_Maxrep]

Fact is no one has died from Mormonism and its teachings.

Ever hear of the Martin or Willie handcart companies?

Touché.

[Guest]

jskains obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Many people have died, either directly or indirectly, as a result of Mormonism and its teachings. (Or maybe he
thinks that Blood Atonement is just an "anti-Mormon myth".)

Oh, yeah, THAT's it. I don't follow your interpretation, so I don't know what I am talking about. The logical fallacies run wild here! :)

JMS

I've noted a tendency of would-be apologists:

1. Make blanket, reductionist, or otherwise unfounded or silly arguments.
2. Display annoyance when critics beging to dismantle the aguments
3. Pull out the "logical fallacy" Trump card when things are not going well.
4. Make grandiose statements intended to demean all critics and their reasoning ability, such as "the logical fallacies run wild here" (all giving any reason to believe that she would know a logical fallacy if it walked up and bit him on the arse).
5. Pat himself on the back thinking that he's really put those critics in their place.

I've noted a tendancy of Anti-Mormons:

1. Make blanket, reductionist, or otherwise unfounded or silly arguments about the LDS Church.
2. Display annoyance when Pro-Mormons don't lie down and agree.\
3. Pull out the "Strawman Argument" Trump card when things are not going well.
4. Make grandiose statements intended to demean all Mormons and their reasoning ability, such as "Your a believer, so your brainwashed and can't see the error of your ways".
5. Pat himself on the back, thinking that he's really put those Mormons in their place.

What else?

1. Demand that everything they say is truth.
2. Use insulting comments like "Morg" or "Mormon Cult"
3. Declare that they are "enlightened" or "free" in order to insinuate that no active Mormon could possibly be a free thinker.
4. Blame Mormonism for every evil they possibly can.
5. Make fun of their spelling using things like [sic] to further expand their "arguments".

Shall I go on? We can always compare these notes, or we can actually discuss things like adults. Ball in your court.

JMS

Touche. Let's start with this, I disagree with the opening premise of your OP on homosexuality, and it appears to be much of the basis for your proceeding argument. I also think that the evidence shows this assumption to be wrong headed. Do you care to defend it or clarify it?

[_jskains]

Touché.

Oh yes, I was put in my place! Anti-Mormon backpatting for everyone!

JMS

[_Dr. Shades]

Do you know my situation or my wife's or do you think you can take your judgemental nose out of my bedroom?

My nose isn't in your bedroom. Lest you've forgotten, I'm making a generalized statement about the reliability of modern birth control, not about you.

But enough of the "surprise" discussion for now. In your original post, you wrote:

Now that I am going to be a father, I have grown closer to the Church and feel it is a positive light in a very dark world. Teenage pregnancy is up, school shootings are more common than they used to be.... Children are declining in moral and social value (play on XBox Live and see how these kids talk), and now the family unit is under attack....

This sounds quite similar to your statements on ZLMB before it died. Now, even if the LDS church is the neatest thing since sliced bread, it doesn't change one iota whether or not it is factually true.

Tell us: Is your infatuation with the church because it is factually and doctrinally true, or because it's a cool organization that you like?

Touché.

Oh yes, I was put in my place! Anti-Mormon backpatting for everyone!

That doesn't answer the question. Let's put it another way: The deaths within the Martin and Willie handcart companies were brought about directly from prophetic counsel to leave late in the year. So yes, Mormonism did indeed bring about many people's deaths.

[_guy sajer]

Touché.

Oh yes, I was put in my place! Anti-Mormon backpatting for everyone!

JMS

WTF? When someone says "touche," it is intended as a friendly "ok, nice reply, you got me there."

Precisely when do you want to start talking about things as adults? How about leading by example?

[_jskains]

Touche. Let's start with this, I disagree with the opening premise of your OP on homosexuality, and it appears to be much of the basis for your proceeding argument. I also think that the evidence shows this assumption to be wrong headed. Do you care to defend it or clarify it?

I'll answer in the other thread later today. I got a client calling with a computer problem, so I am off..

The biggest problem with any of these forums is the massive gang-up that always occures, making it difficult to keep up...

TTFN,
JMS

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Do you know my situation or my wife's or do you think you can take your judgemental nose out of my bedroom?

Having trouble in that area are you?

[_guy sajer]

touché. Let's start with this, I disagree with the opening premise of your OP on homosexuality, and it appears to be much of the basis for your proceeding argument. I also think that the evidence shows this assumption to be wrong headed. Do you care to defend it or clarify it?

I'll answer in the other thread later today. I got a client calling with a computer problem, so I am off..

The biggest problem with any of these forums is the massive gang-up that always occures, making it difficult to keep up...

TTFN,
JMS

I think, if I may give some advice, that the gang up is a function of tone and argument style. You came in guns blazing making very provocative statements, practically putting out a neon sign advertising that your intent was confrontational. Then, without any knowledge of the background of board participants, start throwing out outrageous statements that fail to take into account the background of participants here, which again provokes confrontation.

We don't gang up on Nehor, Jason Bourne, Abestosman, and others (Charity excepted because, well, she's a special case). Hell, even Wade England can get us going in a discussion now and then. Coggins is very confrontational, but we have a history with him, so that's different too.

Confrontation begets confrontation. If you want dialogue, tone it down a notch. You lack the street cred, or acceptance level here, to come in all confrontational and then expect us to play nice. You say you want dialogue, but your behavior and content of your posts says otherwise.

I happy to dialogue with you, but you'll have to tone it down a notch or two, at least from the git go. I think others (though not all) will agree.