Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_charity]

It truly speaks to the mind of the fanatic. Would you go into the temple for the first time, have them send men to one side of the room and women to the other, and ask everyone to disrobe publicly, and not speak up? Goodness, where is your conscience? Where are your boundaries?

The "where is your conscience and boundaries" makes it very personal. You can't wiggle out of that. You wanted people to believe that this is what happens. That is a lie.

Your outrage seems pretty strange to me. After all, this is a religion where the only perfect person ever on the earth instructed his disciples to pretend they were eating his flesh and drinking his blood!

He did? Where? I thought it was Wonder Bread and tap water.

Mark 14: 22-24 ¶ And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

At least I am not telling lies about it. I am really surprised that you have. I didn't agree with your point of view, but I thought you were honest about it, at least.

Let's see. . .I seem to recall that a number of times on this board where you claim that calling the other party "liar" makes the person lose the argument. ]

No, I have said the person who calls names loses the the argument. Exposling a liar is done in the interests of truth. Backpedal as much as you want, you said it and it is there.

I haven't lied about anything here. All members who've gone through the temple know exactly what takes place there. Smart readers here know when I'm posting a hypothetical, and don't represent it as a lie.

You were aiming to inflame the non-LDS lurkers. There have been enough stupid myths around about nakedness in the temples, and you knew that and played on it. Your methods stink, hana. I really thought you were better than that.

[_the road to hana]

It truly speaks to the mind of the fanatic. Would you go into the temple for the first time, have them send men to one side of the room and women to the other, and ask everyone to disrobe publicly, and not speak up? Goodness, where is your conscience? Where are your boundaries?

The "where is your conscience and boundaries" makes it very personal. You can't wiggle out of that. You wanted people to believe that this is what happens. That is a lie.

No, I didn't. Charity, I'm telling you this for the third time.

I could have said, "Would you go into the temple for the first time, and have them ask you to put on purple bikinis, and not speak up?" but it wouldn't have the same impact.

I could have said, "Would you go into the temple for the first time, and have them ask you to stand on your head, and not speak up?" but it wouldn't have the same impact.

I could have said, "Would you go into the temple for the first time, and have them ask you to cut your hair, and not speak up?" Again, it wouldn't have the same impact.

IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT CHARITY. Please don't make me have to say it again. I had no intention of making people think that is what happens. I used it as an illustration precisely because it doesn't happen.

Now really, you don't want me to have to say that again, do you? I'm sure everyone else here gets it.

[_the road to hana]

Your outrage seems pretty strange to me. After all, this is a religion where the only perfect person ever on the earth instructed his disciples to pretend they were eating his flesh and drinking his blood!

He did? Where? I thought it was Wonder Bread and tap water.

Mark 14: 22-24 ¶ And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

You have no sense of humor.

You chose a poor example, since again it's clearly a case where Mormons (or Joseph Smith, if you prefer) are picking and choosing which ordinances they're going to follow literally (baptism by immersion) and which they aren't (sacrament by tap water and Wonder Bread).

[_the road to hana]

You were aiming to inflame the non-LDS lurkers. There have been enough stupid myths around about nakedness in the temples, and you knew that and played on it. Your methods stink, hana. I really thought you were better than that.

Balderdash. I also used holding an unloaded gun to your head in the temple as a hypothetical. No one suggested that I was claiming it actually happens, or that I was inflaming all those poor innocent lurkers who might actually think that's what happens.

The LDS temple endowment ritual is online for anyone who wants to read it. They don't need to come here. I've been careful in my language in this thread precisely because I don't want it kicked downstairs, which is why I was using hypotheticals.

The point has to do with boundaries. If your teenage daughter came home from school and said that the teacher had asked them all to swear an oath of secrecy in school, and killed an animal in front of them, would it concern you?

You're just not getting what I'm getting at, at all.

A person with a well formed conscience ought to be able to go into a situation such as the pre-1990 LDS temple ritual and say, "Hey, something's not quite right here, where's the door?" Plenty of people who've had the experience share that sentiment, even though they stayed because, well, their parents were there, and maybe an aunt or uncle, and hey, if they're doing it, maybe it's not so crazy.

But almost universally, people who've gone through the experience who've left the church will share stories that buttress the notion that it was either traumatic, shocking, surprising, or just plain silly. But most will attest it invaded their boundaries.

I'm asking you to do some introspection and tell me where you'd draw the line. What could the church ask of you in that situation that would shock you or flip a switch in your head and have you running for the door? Nothing?

[_ozemc]

What God does is not apostacy. It is what men do on their own that falls away from what God wants that is apostacy.

So how do you know the early Christians didn't get it right, and Joseph Smith got it wrong?

Sorry about stepping on your post, Hana, but, in my opinion, anyone who claims to know what God wants is pretty much spitting in the wind.

How can we know the mind of God? It's all speculation.

[_the road to hana]

What God does is not apostacy. It is what men do on their own that falls away from what God wants that is apostacy.

So how do you know the early Christians didn't get it right, and Joseph Smith got it wrong?

Sorry about stepping on your post, Hana, but, in my opinion, anyone who claims to know what God wants is pretty much spitting in the wind.

How can we know the mind of God? It's all speculation.

Exactly right, as Charity has already as much admitted, whether she realizes it or not.

[_charity]

The point has to do with boundaries. If your teenage daughter came home from school and said that the teacher had asked them all to swear an oath of secrecy in school, and killed an animal in front of them, would it concern you?

You're just not getting what I'm getting at, at all.

A person with a well formed conscience ought to be able to go into a situation such as the pre-1990 LDS temple ritual and say, "Hey, something's not quite right here, where's the door?" Plenty of people who've had the experience share that sentiment, even though they stayed because, well, their parents were there, and maybe an aunt or uncle, and hey, if they're doing it, maybe it's not so crazy.

But almost universally, people who've gone through the experience who've left the church will share stories that buttress the notion that it was either traumatic, shocking, surprising, or just plain silly. But most will attest it invaded their boundaries.

I'm asking you to do some introspection and tell me where you'd draw the line. What could the church ask of you in that situation that would shock you or flip a switch in your head and have you running for the door? Nothing?

let's cut to the chase, hana, and stop playing games. Your little "ooh, any sensible person with a conscience would run screaming from the pre-1990 endowment" is just a ruse. I don't mind one bit standing up and saying that I find promsiing to die preferable than betraying the Savior to be an honorable committment. You don't want to do that, fine. You have your agency.

And almost universally people who have left the Church have to be able to give reasons why they did that can rationalize such a decision to themselves and to others. If they stayed in the Church one day after finding that the temple ceremony invaded their boundaries so that they were traumatized, shocked, or driven to believe that something supposed to be sacred was silly, then they either weren't as traumatized as they are saying now, or they they were cowardly beyond belief.

If I had found the temple ceremony to be what you have charged, I would have been gone that day. Any honest person would have.

I can think of a lot of things I wouldn't do. But unlike you, I am not going to throw out disgusting ideas to become associated, even as hypoheticals, with the temple.

Hey, since you want to talk about boundaries and outrage, how about giving me a list of things that if your spouse did you would throw him out the door. Make it really detailed and descriptive and think about it for a while. Then picture him doing those things Won't that be nice?

[_the road to hana]

If I had found the temple ceremony to be what you have charged, I would have been gone that day. Any honest person would have.

This is worthy of its own thread.

You still haven't addressed my question. Where would you draw the line? That is the point, in its entirety.

Is there anything that could take place inside an LDS temple, hypothetically, that could give you pause and make you head for the door?

[_charity]

If I had found the temple ceremony to be what you have charged, I would have been gone that day. Any honest person would have.

This is worthy of its own thread.

You still haven't addressed my question. Where would you draw the line? That is the point, in its entirety.

Is there anything that could take place inside an LDS temple, hypothetically, that could give you pause and make you head for the door?

I already told you, I am not going to make up disgusting things I woulud never do and have those associated, even as hypotheticals with the temple. No psychologically healthy person plays stupid games like that. Your continued insistence isn't really just a means of determinging where I would draw a line. Your motives are either sinister or childish, and I won't lower myself to either one.

[_beastie]

Charity,

First, this got lost in the shuffle and I’m curious about your response. In reference to your former statement about confrontational and nonconfrontational posts at MAD:

by the way, is this post "confrontational" or "nonconfrontational"?

Ok, now I'm going to delve into those claims and see how valid they are. Whoops! The "linguistic evidence" doesn't refer to metallurgy, but rather simple metal, which no one questions existed. And whoops!! Sorenson distorted his sources in his references. The problem hasn't been resolved at all!! This was not quality evidence!!!

Also, another question that got lost:

You cannot "choose" to no longer believe in something that has no supporting evidence - you simply don't believe. "Choosing" to believe or not believe implies some sort of equitable state in terms of evidence.

Even if one were to accept the "choosing" to no longer believe, why did the person make that "choice" to begin with?

Now on to all the fun that has unwound here today.

First, Charity, are you in over your head? Frustrated because your argument is weak and you know it? Just using your own paradigm to figure out all your insults, such as:

So, are you emotionally and intellecutally fragile? A person who has an exaggerated startle response? Who see threatening figures behind bushes? Who wears a tin foil hat so aliens can't read your thoughts?

Or, with a reasoned view, are you making up stories to try to fool the unwary?

I would object to a shotgun, empty or not. But there wasn't any kind of gun involved. You get weirder and weirder. You must have taken the tin foil hat out of the drawer.

Aside from that –

The faithful will continue faithful. Those who are not will fall away. As Dr. Givens says, it is more about who we are, than what the evidence is.

I agree with this. Another name I would use for “faithful” of this sort is True Believer, under the Eric Hoffer terminology:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Charity:

I don't find committing my life to the Savior and His Church to be unreasonable. Wouldn't you be willing to die rather than to betray the Savior?

I think any God who creates a secret handshake or name and then declares that sharing that secret handshake or name is an act worthy of dead is not worth worshipping. In fact, this sort of God sounds more like a mafia don, or an insane person.

Charity:

Finally, you have exposed yourself, hana. NOBODY UNDRESSSES PUBLICLY. And where is your conscience and your boundaries that allows you to tell a lie like that?

First, please take note of hana’s explanation of her comment.

Second:

"The earliest accounts of the Nauvoo temple endowment indicate that initiatory washings followed a literal Old Testament model of actual bathing. Large tubs of water are specified in the separate men's and women's rooms. The anointing was performed by liberally pouring consecrated oil from a horn over the head and allowing it to run over the whole body."

http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_ordinance.htm

Personally, I haven’t read enough about this to know whether or not patrons were actually naked in the tub.