End goal?

[_Ren]

Can we say we are tied?

That would just make you both joint losers.

[_The Nehor]

Can we say we are tied?

That would just make you both joint losers.

There's nothing for it then. I have to kill either the most educated Jew or the Stupidest Mormon on the planet to break the deadlock. Any suggestions?

[_Ren]

Any suggestions?

...the other way round...?

[_amantha]

Actually, you don't need to understand what prompted the question in order to understand the question and directly answer it. But, it is evident that you don't wish to answer the simple and straightforward question. So, never mind. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay. But I still don't understand the purpose of the question. I was hoping to get the context wherein your question originated, but apparently you are unwilling to offer your thoughts on this.

I am not sure why you jumped to that false conclusion. I twice deliberately included the context (I.e. your posts) along with my question, and was even chastened by Sethbag for doing so. And, unlike you, I have responded to your questions with simple and straightforward answers, rather than answering them with evasive questions. I have offered my thoughts on this, but recognized that you seemed reluctant to do so, yourself, and thus I determined that there was little value in pursuing things with you.

Would you please repaste where you have answered my clarifying questions. I can't find your responses. You never gave me the clarification I asked for so don't pretend that you did. Just because you think your question is "straightforward" to you doesn't mean that it makes sense to me. I asked for clarification and you won't help me to understand where you got the idea of stereotyping from. Why not?

Asking for clarification and context is a natural part of any question and answer.

I agree--that is, where clarification and context are necessary to understanding the question (which wasn't the case with my simple and straightforward question), and where requests for clarification and context are NOT being used to evade answering the question (which I believe is self evident in your case).

I get to decide where clarification is necessary, not you. If you don't want to share with me your thoughts on how your question originated then just say so. Just because your question is clear to you does not mean that others will automatically understand it.

I suppose my answer was not that important to you anyway.

It certainly wasn't important enough to go beyond my three failed attempts to get you to answer my simple and straightforward question, though important enough to warrant making the three attempts.

Again why will you not, in good faith, explain to me where you got the concept of stereotyping from in regards to anger and its appropriate use? I need this information to make sense of your question.

Maybe you had already accomplished your intent with the question. I don't know.

I agree...you don't know. But, nice talking to ya.

Exactly. Which is why I asked for you to provide me with some clarification which you refuse to do, assuming that your question should be as clear to me as it is to you. I simply don't understand how the question applies to that original post. This is why I believe you have already achieved your intent. You have no interest in clarifying in good faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It was definitely not a nice or enjoyable interaction with you. Aren't you supposed to be some kind of level-headed therapist or something? I hope you don't patronize your clients in this way when they ask for clarification even when you think they don't or shouldn't need it.

[_harmony]

It was definitely not a nice or enjoyable interaction with you. Aren't you supposed to be some kind of level-headed therapist or something? I hope you don't patronize your clients in this way when they ask for clarification even when you think they don't or shouldn't need it.

Uh, no. Wade is not a therapist.

[_amantha]

Uh, no. Wade is not a therapist.

Well that's good to know. He has posted a lot about building bridges of communication between believers and ex-believers so I assumed he was supposed to have some kind of training in that field.

[_The Nehor]

Uh, no. Wade is not a therapist.

Well that's good to know. He has posted a lot about building bridges of communication between believers and ex-believers so I assumed he was supposed to have some kind of training in that field.

So did President Clinton.

[_ludwigm]

LDS theology emphasizes education and self-development more than any other religion.

And LDS theology limits the thinking of the more educated ones more than any other religion.

Oops! Islam may have harder restrictions ...

[_ozemc]

{ re: JW household vs LDS household} Is the difference here, in your mind, that the JWs really aren't true, but the LDS really are, so of course it's all totally different?

One of my best friends in high school was JW. I had many philosophical disagreements with the theology. This was long before I converted. So no, the difference I see is not based on whether or not we are "true" and they aren't. I came from a family which highly valued education and self-development. The low expectations and limitations of the entire JW theology was not attractive to me. LDS theology emphasizes education and self-development more than any other religion. For that reason alone, your analogy misses the mark.

How very judgemental of you, Charity. Reverse JW and LDS in your paragraph, and maybe you'll get a clue.

How so? Check out their own information. They discourage college educations. Jehovah Witnesses do not support a unversity system, institutes, or seminaries. They have no Education Weeks, no forum and symposiums. They don't have a Perpetual Education Fund for aid of members in less developed countries. I think that speaks for itself.

And, as usual, you miss the whole point.

OK, try again <sigh> use Baptists in the example, if you want. They do have colleges, etc.

But again, you're missing the point.

My beef is that so many intelligent people whom I know personally are still stuck in this false worldview. Some of them are suffering because of it. I had a long talk with my sister recently, where I came away thinking that she's under a lot of mental stress because she knows there's something wrong with her religious worldview, but the cobwebs are so think, and the cords that bind her mind are so strong, that she's struggling to understand what's going on. She's very smart. She graduated #1 in her class from Yale a few years back and is perhaps less than a year from having her PhD. It's a crying shame that a mind like hers, and her PhD husband's, should be subjected to such false belief systems from the day they're born.

This is one of the big fallacies of the anti-Mormon and ex-mormon rationalization. That if only Person X could think clealry and not be "shackled" with "indoctrination" from their childhood, then they could be"enlightened" like we are. I am living proof that intelligent people can come to the LDS faith with no early teaching, can study and learn and actively CHOSE it.

People also CHOOSE to speed, drink themselves sick, do drugs, commit adultery, and all other self-defeating activities. They are no more or no less intelligent than you are.

Just because someone "choses" to follow a lie does not make it true.

Not, it doesn't. But it makes their own choice and they can't gripe about it later.

And by the way, I don't believe that everyone will see the Church as I see it. If we were all to see it the same way there would have been no purpose in mortal existence, beyond gaining a physical body.

However, you do believe that if they don't see it your way, they lack your intelligence, your superior spiritual enlightenment, etc. etc.

It just amazes me that people cannot see in themselves what they see in others.

You are wrong about me. I don't expect you to have read all my posts and hung on every word I say. But I have said this before. Everyone will make their own choice, and be happy with their choice in the long run. We aren't going to make all the same choice. The Church is for those who make a certain choice and will result in a specfici consequence. That choice and that consequence aren't for every one. I don't see the telestial, terrestrial and celestial kingdoms as good, better, best. They are different.

At one time I was considered a gifted pianist. I could have had a concert career. But the effort and dedication required would have meant that many other options for my life were precluded. I could not have had 6 children and been a stay at home mom. I chose not to pursue a concert career. Instead, I continued to play, peformed at ward activities, was an accompanist for 40 years for ward, stake and regional choirs and for soloists. I was the organist for the first dedicatory session of the Seattle Temple.

So, was I the "telestial" or "terrestrial" level of pianist? Should I have make the choice to be a "celestial" level pianist? Iam completely satisfied with my choice. And if concert career is the "celestial" level, I wouldn't have been happy there.

That's what I think of the different kingdoms. We make the choice we want. We are happy with that choice. Someone who makes a different choice isn't better. They are just different.

No, you were just a pianist.

Just like we both believe there's a heaven, but you want to divide it. I don't.

[_Coggins7]

Yes, why trust in all that naughty, wicked, deceptive hard evidence and reason when you can easily put faith in the transient words and feelings of believers? Satan must be a scientist or something.

This is side splitting, especially coming from someone who, during his time here, as provided little evidence that he is conversant with the concept of "hard evidence".