Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_truth dancer]

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?

Charity,

As has been pointed out to you many times, you have a tendency to misread posters.

TRTH is trying to figure out if there is anything that would cause you to question the temple ceremony. She is ASKING YOU if you would speak up if this happened?

She said nothing or insinuated nothing about this actually happening in the temple.. nothing at all. It is your imagination or misinterpretation that is at fault here.

She has explained this repeatedly and you still seem not to understand.

I think YOU are the one who owes an apology.

[_the road to hana]

There have been enough stupid myths around about nakedness in the temples

I think this point is worth a follow-up.

Hey, you lurkers out there--be clear on this one. There IS nakedness in temples, just not as exciting as you might imagine.

I've been naked in more than one temple. I assume others have been, too.

It's generally about as exciting as changing in a locker room after gym class, or going to the doctor. That's about it.

First time was changing out of dripping clothing after doing a ton of baptisms at the age of twelve. Naked. Yes. As a jaybird. But not in front of anyone of the opposite sex.

W&A have been changed enough recently to provide a modicum of privacy that was previously nonexistent. Naked? Not entirely. But uncomfortably not modestly dressed? Absolutely.

[_truth dancer]

Also,

During the early days of the W&A ceremony, a woman or man sat naked in a tub while other members of the same sex washed them and poured oil over them.

It is well documented in the book, "Mysteries of Holiness."

[_the road to hana]

Speaking of temple myths (sorry to derail so far off the original point of the thread, but I'm just thinking about this), I remember before I ever went to a temple for the first time, and I heard people talk about "eating at the temple." I swore they were lying about it, because they couldn't possibly be serving food there.

Now, I appreciate not all temples these days (especially McTemples) have food service like back in the day, but what a reality check it was for me when I found out that they really did have food service in the temple. And lockers. And a host of other things that I had previously said could not possibly be true, people must be lying.

[_charity]

First, this got lost in the shuffle and I’m curious about your response. . .

I don't like to jump back into something out of context. I really don't have the time to go back and read the whole topic. And besides, my heart isn't in it right now considering what started going on here. I don't mean to ignore questions. Please give me a chance on a new thread, if you really are interested in this questions.

And I really am interested in the "choosing to believe" topic, as you have probalby noticed.

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.

Hana's posts with their outrageous claims and mind reading and insulting to me personally are visible to all. As I said to her, her insistence that I post a list of disgusting events which, if they were to happen in a temple, would outrage me is either a calculated and evil attempt to associate yet more disgusting things with the temple, other that what she already posted, or else it is a really stupid childish behavior. I don't know which. I leave it the readers of her posts to determine which.

I have gone to the temple hundreds of times. I am with people in the temple every week. We find it beautiful and meaningful. And it is irritating to have people who are obviously on a different level saying horrible things about it. And to borrow from Dr. Givens, I think it says more about the person than the ordinance itself. People who look for beauty find it. People who look for ugliness find that.

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.

I don't shut my eyes or stop my ears. But you all can think that if you want, and think how superior and enlightened you are over us blind, brainwashed sloggers. But I can tell you, I see beauty, and love and goodness in the Church and in its members. I think that is preferable to the hatred and ugliness that is constantly expressed by critics and anti-Mormons. What is good is of God. And I will raise some ire with this statement. Ugliness and hatred comes from Satan.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you have your choice. And your "slant" is inaccurate anyway.

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.

And you saw my response to her lame backpedal. Associating two words or concepts together creates a link in memory. Do you know that memory studies show that in about a month, a significant fraction of people who saw those concepts linked, would not remember that it was a hypothetical and would end up thinking it is correct.

If she knows this, then this would give weight to the opinion that she is deliberately trying to defame and mock sacred things. Or if she doesn't, it could just be that she is annoying and silly. You chose.

[_the road to hana]

If she knows this, then this would give weight to the opinion that she is deliberately trying to defame and mock sacred things. Or if she doesn't, it could just be that she is annoying and silly. You chose.

False dilemma.

[_beastie]

I don't shut my eyes or stop my ears. But you all can think that if you want, and think how superior and enlightened you are over us blind, brainwashed sloggers. But I can tell you, I see beauty, and love and goodness in the Church and in its members. I think that is preferable to the hatred and ugliness that is constantly expressed by critics and anti-Mormons. What is good is of God. And I will raise some ire with this statement. Ugliness and hatred comes from Satan.

If the faithful will simply not lose faith, no matter WHAT, then those faithful are True Believers.

If the faithful could feasibly lose faith when presented with compelling enough evidence, then those faithful are not True Believers.

Givens and you certainly make it sound like there is a core of faithful that will not lose faith, no matter what, and it is because of WHO they are, and has nothing to do with the evidence. If the evidence is irrelevant to their continuing faith, they are True Believers in the Hoffer sense of the word.

Your perception of "ugliness and hatred" coming from critics of the church is your own creation, due to your personal bias. I think it's pretty hateful and ugly to insinuate critics are "satan's minions", but you would disagree. See how it works?

[_charity]

If the faithful will simply not lose faith, no matter WHAT, then those faithful are True Believers.

If the faithful could feasibly lose faith when presented with compelling enough evidence, then those faithful are not True Believers.

Givens and you certainly make it sound like there is a core of faithful that will not lose faith, no matter what, and it is because of WHO they are, and has nothing to do with the evidence. If the evidence is irrelevant to their continuing faith, they are True Believers in the Hoffer sense of the word.

I don't expect you to have remembeed the statement Dr. Givens made that I referenced. He said there is evidence enough on both sides that a person can make the choice either way, to believe or not believe. Critics want to think that there is only evidence against, and no evidence for. This is not the case. There is both. And we are told that we can never take our testimonies for granted. Anyone can lose their faith. I certainly work to see that I am doing those things which will support faith and not destroy it.

Your perception of "ugliness and hatred" coming from critics of the church is your own creation, due to your personal bias. I think it's pretty hateful and ugly to insinuate critics are "satan's minions", but you would disagree. See how it works?

I can give you many examples from this board, in the moderated terrestrial forum, (and I won't even guess about the telestial forum) to say nothing of RfM, about the ugliness and hatred. Name calling, insulting personal attributed because a person is a believer, slanders and defmations against leaders, and ridiculing and mocking of those things believers hold sacred. That is ugliness.

Of course, I see the "Satan's minions" thing differently. I think sort of in the way your posting the Hoffer theory. I can argue that what he says doesn't apply to me, but that doesn't mean that it might not apply to some people. So, you can say that you are not one of Satan's minions, but that doesn't mean others aren't. How do you see a difference bewteen the two?

[_the road to hana]

Name calling, insulting personal attributed because a person is a believer, slanders and defmations against leaders, and ridiculing and mocking of those things believers hold sacred. That is ugliness.

What you fail to see, and you are not alone in this, is that you can yourself be guilty of name calling, insulting others and other religious leaders, and ridiculing and mocking things that others hold sacred.

You just don't see that.

How much of that happens over on MADB? A fair amount.

Some people might think Evangelicals are good guys. They get plenty of criticism over on MADB.

Some people might think Huckabee's a decent fellow. He gets plenty of criticism over on MADB.

Some people might think Constantine was a good guy. He doesn't get championed much over on MADB.

Some people might consider their form of baptism sacred, or how they observe a ritual differently than you. That doesn't stop criticism coming from Mormon quarters.

You diss others regularly. You and others diss other religions, religious figures, religious practices. Doesn't seem to bother you in the least. But then you cry foul when it happens to you.

What is sacred to you could be an offense to what is sacred to another. And vice versa.

But you don't see that. It's doubtful you ever will.

[_JAK]

Apologists don't go out to "save" anything. They are there, in case someone makes the choice to believe rather that disbelieve.

Facts be damned.

Belief is never a matter of "facts." It is a matter of faith.

Charity,

This reference goes back to page 2 of this lengthy thread.

More than 300 years ago, John Locke, one of the architects of the English Enlightenment who was influential in shaping philosophy wrote: “Every sect as far a reason will help them, makes use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cryout, ‘It is a matter of faith and above reason.’”

It’s crucially important to be precise in describing exactly what a belief system contends. When beliefs are wildly at odds with facts and evidence, such beliefs become irrelevant. Faith is irrelevant. When fact and evidence clearly demonstrate any belief to be flawed, it’s the belief which must be abandoned.

In the long run, it’s self-defeating to maintain beliefs and damn the facts (antishock8).

JAK