Weird (stupid) Sealing Policies

[_Coggins7]

I have even more of an ethical problem with someone who has clearly lied through her teeth regarding her real beliefs and feelings about the Church to her leaders to keep her Temple recommend, a recommend that allows her to attend services Liz, the origin and purpose of which she has made equally clear she believes are something akin to a joke. And, as the entire thing came from Joseph--that pious fraud, liar, lecher, and adulterer, why would she want to continue in such a grand pretense?

Answer: its a Mormon credential she can wave here in at attempt to try to make others believe that you can believe anything you so desire in the Church, and still be considered a 'faithful" member, even when your are in open, defiant rebellion against its leaders and most of its central teachings.

If you expect me to buy any of this Liz, you have a whole lotta other things coming.

[_Coggins7]

Oh dear! I snipped too quickly. Didn't see this lil nugget! :)

The debate between ID and evolution is about the plausibility of the evolution of life as a purely blind, random chance process, not necessarily about whether evolution occurred.

Are you one of the "serious ID folks", Coggins? Might want to brush up on evolution before you try to discuss it. :)

Moniker, this indicates that you are clearly not in the loop regarding the central thesis of ID and its criticism of Darwinism, so if you'd like a discussion on the subject, fine, if you'd like to be educated upon the subject, fine. Don't, however, try to educate me on the subject. If you don't understand the historic difference between what has come to be called "ID" and Protestant Fundamentalist "creationism", bow out now.

[_harmony]

I have even more of an ethical problem with someone who has clearly lied through her teeth regarding her real beliefs and feelings about the Church to her leaders to keep her Temple recommend, a recommend that allows her to attend services Liz, the origin and purpose of which she has made equally clear she believes are something akin to a joke. And, as the entire thing came from Joseph--that pious fraud, liar, lecher, and adulterer, why would she want to continue in such a grand pretense?

Answer: its a Mormon credential she can wave here in at attempt to try to make others believe that you can believe anything you so desire in the Church, and still be considered a 'faithful" member, even when your are in open, defiant rebellion against its leaders and most of its central teachings.

If you expect me to buy any of this Liz, you have a whole lotta other things coming.

Loran, you're an embarrassment to Mormons everywhere. I'm not the topic of this thread. Either stick to the topic or get out of the thread.

[Guest]

Oh dear! I snipped too quickly. Didn't see this lil nugget! :)

The debate between ID and evolution is about the plausibility of the evolution of life as a purely blind, random chance process, not necessarily about whether evolution occurred.

Are you one of the "serious ID folks", Coggins? Might want to brush up on evolution before you try to discuss it. :)

Moniker, this indicates that you are clearly not in the loop regarding the central thesis of ID and its criticism of Darwinism, so if you'd like a discussion on the subject, fine, if you'd like to be educated upon the subject, fine. Don't, however, try to educate me on the subject. If you don't understand the historic difference between what has come to be called "ID" and Protestant Fundamentalist "creationism", bow out now.

Hi. I know that there's a crucial problem with stating that evolution occurs through a "random chance process".

Do you?

Coggins, reply to me in a new thread if you feel the need.

[_beastie]

Hi. I know that there's a crucial problem with stating that evolution occurs through a "random chance process".

Do you?

I also wait with bated breath. This is the most common error anti-evolutionists make. It will be interesting to see if Coggie can even recognize the error.

[_Coggins7]

I also wait with bated breath. This is the most common error anti-evolutionists make. It will be interesting to see if Coggie can even recognize the error.

No, there's no error, and I'm not going to play the clever Stephen Gould semantic games over it either. The reason Dawkins and many other militant atheist scientists think that evolution precludes belief in God, and is the final nail in his coffin, is precisely because of what evolutionists have always claimed are the inevitable intellectual consequences of full acceptance of the theory and its implications: the entire universe, and all the objects within it, including all biological life on this planet, are a consequence of purely random, blind, mechanistic forces working through time against vast improbabilities to produce both the planet and the biosphere.

Life appears designed, but it is not. It is a complete and utter accident, an epiphenomena of the universe, as is human consciousness. I understand the augments surrounding the idea that natural selection is not random but functional; that which survives survives because of the local environment in which natural selection takes place, and hence, is linked to form and function in a practical sense.

There is en element of sophistry that enters into the discussion, however, when Darwinian fundamentalists attempt to deflect philosophical criticism of their extrapolations from the mechanics of evolution to origins and meaning. While natural selection itself is not random, the entire matrix of genetic mutation, variation, and development; the entire process and history of the micromutational steps that led to the particular form and function of any creature, most certainly is conceived of in this manner. It is also the case that the environment around any species that allows a specific phylogenetic line to survive and reproduce, has itself, come into being as a result of purly random evolutionary developments, and this included the inorganic, geological environment, climate, and the existence of the earth itself. Natural selection cannot be invoked to explain the creation of the earth, the oceans, the earth's fortuitous placement in the solar system, or global climate dynamics, as these these are not living things but complex physical systems that are themselves the products of unimaginably fortuitous chance events that happened to produce the earth and its various dynamic physical and chemical systems.

So what we have is evolution as a purely random process of the accumulation of traits and attributes, but natural selection as a process that is, in a way 'guided" by environmental factors. However, natural selection is a function of evolution as a process, which is random, which means that any guiding that occurs in the selection process is itself predicated upon the larger evolutionary framework, which is based in unmediated randomness. In other words, natural selection is not random, but the evolutionary process itself; the genetic mutations and modifications that allow selection to work, are. Hence, natural selection could not exist without evolutionary change, which is a purely random process. Randomness then, produces creatures that have been molded by random mutation combined with environmental pressures that channeled evolution into various niches by favoring some kinds of adaptations over others. Logically then, evolution as a process in its entirety is still a purely blind, random chance process, even as that process itself allows a guided channeling of development. But let's be honest; this is not intelligent guidance (and that's the issue) but apurely functional guidance based in an organism's relation to already existing physical constraints that themselves came into being through a strictly random, unguided process determined by the laws of physics, and it is still the case that all of it is assumed to have come into being without intelligence, design, or intelligent organization and initiation.

So this is really a red herring for the ID debate, which isn't about natural selection (a function of evolution that itself guides the evolutionary process), but about whether any of this, including natural selection as a feature of evolutionary processes, could ever have arisen by pure chance at all. A further, more religious extrapolation from this, might ask whether any of this could be maintained without some continuing connection to both the divine template of creation (the design, the blueprints or schematics of organic and inorganic creation) and a continuing guiding influence that modifies and controls the evolutionary process.

[_Yoda]

I have even more of an ethical problem with someone who has clearly lied through her teeth regarding her real beliefs and feelings about the Church to her leaders to keep her Temple recommend, a recommend that allows her to attend services Liz, the origin and purpose of which she has made equally clear she believes are something akin to a joke. And, as the entire thing came from Joseph--that pious fraud, liar, lecher, and adulterer, why would she want to continue in such a grand pretense?

Answer: its a Mormon credential she can wave here in at attempt to try to make others believe that you can believe anything you so desire in the Church, and still be considered a 'faithful" member, even when your are in open, defiant rebellion against its leaders and most of its central teachings.

If you expect me to buy any of this Liz, you have a whole lotta other things coming.

How in the hell do you know what she is saying in a temple recommend interview? Were you present? I don't think so. The only thing we can really do on these forums is take people at their word. At least, that's what I've tried to do. According to Harmony, her Bishop and her Church leaders know EXACTLY how she feels about the Church, and, by their authority, and their judgment, gave her a temple recommend, anyway. You don't agree with their assessment? Too damned bad. You're not her bishop (thank God)...Hopefully, you're not anyone else's bishop either.

In a word Liz, hit the road.

No such luck, my friend. You first!

[_Coggins7]

How in the hell do you know what she is saying in a temple recommend interview? Were you present? I don't think so. The only thing we can really do on these forums is take people at their word. At least, that's what I've tried to do. According to Harmony, her Bishop and her Church leaders know EXACTLY how she feels about the Church, and, by their authority, and their judgment, gave her a temple recommend, anyway. You don't agree with their assessment? Too damned bad. You're not her bishop (thank God)...Hopefully, you're not anyone else's bishop either.

Its really quite simple: look at a list of the fundamental doctrines and teachings, central to the Church and its truth claims, that she does not accept. Second, take cognizance of her view, a view she has made clear over and over again, that the present population of the leadership of the Church, from the Prophet through the Twelve, are essentially pious frauds running the Church as uninspired men, on their own authority and in a manner corresponding to their own prejudices and biases.

Now, ask yourself if, in being open and clear with your leaders about your feelings regarding the Church, those leaders would recommend you be allowed to engage in the highest, most sacred forms of worship within the Gospel (keeping in mind that eternal marriage is one of Harmony's raging pet peeves). Harmony has said quite clearly, on more than one occasion, that the Temple ceremonies should be open to the public.

Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. But, you are entitled to your own opinion.

[_Coggins7]

The only thing we can really do on these forums is take people at their word.

Well, in these forums I prefer the maxim of agent 99:

"trust no one, suspect everyone".

[_Yoda]

But, you are entitled to your own opinion.

That's just it, Cog. We're all entitled to our own opinions, here.

What I get pissed off with you about is that as soon as you get bested by Harmony, or any poster here who disagrees with you, you immediately go for the ad hominem attacks on character.

Why don't you grow some balls and debate the issues for once?