wenglund wrote:I also think it reasonable for people to also view such as inpertinent. Different reasonable people have different reasonable ways of deciding pertinence. Right?
Right. Which is exactly why the church should throw open the First Presidency's vault: So that people can decide pertinence for themselves.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
wenglund wrote:One need not spend much time on Mormon-related discussion boards such as this to realize the wide-spread fear among former members and even some waivering and unbelieving members, that:
The Church is withholding (or not disclosing) information needed to make an informed decision, thus victimizing investigators and members through soliciting life-long committments they otherwise wouldn't have made had they been fully informed.
We at least know this is perceived to be the case since not a few former members here have claimed as much about themselves.
The question is, is this fear irrational when it comes to your average believing member?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
we have laws in the US that prevents a auto salesperson from withholding pertinent information. We all know the church withholds facts, whitewashes and out and out lies about its history and doctrine. This is wrong and dishonest. Yes, we should fear an organization who has to resort to this type of behavior to make their message palatable.
wenglund wrote:One need not spend much time on Mormon-related discussion boards such as this to realize the wide-spread fear among former members and even some waivering and unbelieving members, that:
The Church is withholding (or not disclosing) information needed to make an informed decision, thus victimizing investigators and members through soliciting life-long committments they otherwise wouldn't have made had they been fully informed.
We at least know this is perceived to be the case since not a few former members here have claimed as much about themselves.
The question is, is this fear irrational when it comes to your average believing member?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Paranoia is rarely a rational response.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
I'm with Who Knows on this one. I think your average, reasonable person, not already emotionally connected with the church, would want to know things such as Joseph Smith's secret marriages, behind his wife's back, of several dozen other women, a dozen or so of whom were already married to other men. I just think a reasonable person would find that information pertinent to the question of whether Joseph Smith is likely to be credible in his claims to represent God. I think a reasonable person would want to know that Joseph Smith allegedly used the same technique, ie: the magic rock in a hat, to "translate" the Book of Mormon that he'd previously used to try to find buried treasure for people for hire. There are many other things I think a reasonable person would want to know.
Call me an evil minion of Satan if you want, but I just think a reasonable person, looking into the truth claims of the LDS church, would want to know these things.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
wenglund wrote:So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that deception isn't in the eye of the beholder, but is presupposed in every case where pertinent information is omitted?
Yes.
But, isn't pertinence in the eye of the beholder?
Yes. Which is precisely why one person has no right to determine "pertinence" on behalf of anyone else.
If pertinence is in the eye of the beholder, and deception is conditioned upon pertinence, then logically, deception is in the eye of the beholder (contrary to what you previously suggested). In other words, either decpetion and pertinence is in the eye of the beholder, or neither is. You can't logically have it one way for one and another way for the other.
So, which is it?
I mean, some people may believe you have omitted pertinent information on your web site, but you may not.
True enough.
Should deception then be presupposed in every case where anyone may think pertinent information is omitted?
Yes.
And to head your next question off at the pass--since I know exactly what you're going to say next--yes, if someone thinks I am omitting pertinent information, then that person is justified in believing I am committing deception. That's why I always encourage everyone to verify anything I say and not simply take my word.
So, since I believe your web site has omitted what to me is pertinent information, then to one and all your website should be presupposed as deceptive (since, according to you, deception is not in the eye of the behold). Right?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by Gadianton on Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In other words, aren't you begging the original question by presupposing deception?
Yes, precisely.
Keep in mind, Shades, like Scratch and many others here, is not a careful, critical thinker. He, like many others here, is on a mission. That mission is not to seek truth but to justify and balm its rejection.
Shades has no idea what's in the vaults, but he's quite sure it must be damning.
Well of course...
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
The church does not formally recognize what you consider your contribution (apologetics).
In my opinion, apologists have a chip missing that disables their basic functions of integrity. Some might call it situational ethics or "grey area".
This philosophy is not yet taught openly in mainstream, but is strongly discredited through the teaching of honesty, integrity, strict morallity, perfect obedience and essential repentance.
You may think you're just ahead of your time but I think you've already seperated yourself from the Mormon church.
To me, you are the wolf in sheep's clothing amidst the mainstream Mormons that don't know you or the church's history - calling evil good and good evil.
Oh the pain...the terrible pain...
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
wenglund wrote:This standard tends to work where there is no dispute as to what a reasonable man may think in a given situation--particularly in cases where reasonable men can reasonably disagree.
There isn't a dispute (for the reasonable person).
The reasonable person would want all the facts up front, both good and bad - in order to make an informed decision.
No dispute.
Are you suggesting that a reasonable persons go even further than Shades, and would want "all the facts up front" rather than just the "pertinent facts"?
Is your notion of "reasonable person" unfettered from matters of practicality and pertinences?