Wide-spread fear

[_Who Knows]

No...I don't believe you did see. In fact, I can't find the least indication in your irrelevant investment analogy where you at all see what I meant by my relevant teacher analogy.

The reason the investment analogy is completely relevant--whereas your teacher analogy is wholly irrelevant--is because to join Mormonism is to embark on a lifetime of investment of money, time, and effort.

So tell us, Wade: If someone wanting you to give him money to invest on your behalf was ever in jail, is his jail term pertinent to your decision to give him money? Why or why not? And who should decide if the jail term is pertinent--you, or him? Why?

Yeah, I'd like to hear why wade thinks his analogy is relevant, while shades' is not.

[_wenglund]

No...I don't believe you did see. In fact, I can't find the least indication in your irrelevant investment analogy where you at all see what I meant by my relevant teacher analogy.

The reason the investment analogy is completely relevant--whereas your teacher analogy is wholly irrelevant--is because to join Mormonism is to embark on a lifetime of investment of money, time, and effort.

So tell us, Wade: If someone wanting you to give him money to invest on your behalf was ever in jail, is his jail term pertinent to your decision to give him money? Why or why not? And who should decide if the jail term is pertinent--you, or him? Why?

There are several reaons why your "investment" analogy isn't relevant and my teaching analogy is:

1. The issue of "pertinence" is regarding what "facts" the Church should TEACH investigators and members in their respective LESSONS, and not what facts should be disclosed in an offer of an investment deal.
2. The "facts" that the Church is to TEACH are regarding the restored gospel of Christ, and not some financial INVESTMENT scheme.
3. The Church TEACHES a number of LESSONS to both investigators and members, and not a one-time investment offer.
4. The restored gospel of Christ that is being TAUGHT by the Church relates to personal growth, which is contingient upon personal effort, and whatever personal commitments are made (financial comitments only being one of several), are made incrementally and are contingient upon the individuals growth and faith in the restored gospel, and not a one-time investment scheme the success of which is dependant upon others.
5. The end objective of the LESSONS is to bring people to Christ and to enable them to become like Christ, and not some financial winfall.

Really, with your background in the Church, I don't know why this isn't obvious to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

Wade:

If the church isn't actually true, is that a pertinent fact for people to discover before joining?

[_msnobody]

It's also not fear, Wenglund. You are 0 for 2 here. Fear is a stage early in the discovery of that information you are speaking of. As in, I'm afraid to pursue this information to it's possible conclusions, because the church has always told me that could land me in Satans grasp.

But after one realizes that if the church isn't all it claim-none of those fear tactics even matter, the fear stage passes. Of course there could be some who get stuck in that stage and are afraid to move forward or backward, but not many, in my opinion.

Does that make sense? I know more than a few LDS friends that live with a secret fear that the thing is a fraud but are too afraid to entertain the idea.

It does make sense to consider, as "fear" ,what you described about your few LDS friends. However, I am not sure I agree that what I described in my OP isn't fear. But, I don't want the thread to get bogged down in semantics. So, how about this: if you or anyone else doesn't like the word "fear", then feel free to call it something else.

Call it: abhorrence, agitation, angst, anxiety, apprehensiveness, aversion, awe, concern, consternation, creeps, despair, discomposure, dismay, disquietude, distress, doubt, dread, foreboding, fright, jitters, misgiving, nightmare, panic, phobia, presentiment, qualm, scared, suspicion, terror, timidity, trepidation, unease, uneasiness, worry, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Justifiable concern would be the term I'd choose.

Regarding your OP, and I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but the two words that come to mind are flim flam. Someone once tried to flim flam my grandmother in a department store parking lot. Fortunately, she knew what was happening was not good and ran from it, but should she have followed through with the flim flammers request, she wouldn't have realized and regretted her choice until damage had been done.

Really, isn't the problem lack of informed consent?

[_Gadianton]

I'm sure you can find some fallacy in your big book to fit your accusation. As has been pointed out, ex Mormons aren't "afraid" the church isn't fully disclosing its history to investigators, they are just claiming it and are probably a little angry about it. I'm not afraid that tobacco companies ignore and downplay the dangers of smoking. But as a further issue that you might be missing, part of the discussion revolves around the fact that people are actually "converted" to the church. And in the context of this discussion, it's niether fear nor anger but simply a matter of fact that has to be put on the table, that many of these people wouldn't have ever been converted had they heard both sides of the story. If children are educated properly, their chances of taking up smoking are less.

[_wenglund]

Wade:

If the church isn't actually true, is that a pertinent fact for people to discover before joining?

Can such a "fact" ever be difinitively determined one way or the other? If not, then your question doesn't make sense as asked.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

It's also not fear, Wenglund. You are 0 for 2 here. Fear is a stage early in the discovery of that information you are speaking of. As in, I'm afraid to pursue this information to it's possible conclusions, because the church has always told me that could land me in Satans grasp.

But after one realizes that if the church isn't all it claim-none of those fear tactics even matter, the fear stage passes. Of course there could be some who get stuck in that stage and are afraid to move forward or backward, but not many, in my opinion.

Does that make sense? I know more than a few LDS friends that live with a secret fear that the thing is a fraud but are too afraid to entertain the idea.

It does make sense to consider, as "fear" ,what you described about your few LDS friends. However, I am not sure I agree that what I described in my OP isn't fear. But, I don't want the thread to get bogged down in semantics. So, how about this: if you or anyone else doesn't like the word "fear", then feel free to call it something else.

Call it: abhorrence, agitation, angst, anxiety, apprehensiveness, aversion, awe, concern, consternation, creeps, despair, discomposure, dismay, disquietude, distress, doubt, dread, foreboding, fright, jitters, misgiving, nightmare, panic, phobia, presentiment, qualm, scared, suspicion, terror, timidity, trepidation, unease, uneasiness, worry, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Justifiable concern would be the term I'd choose.

Regarding your OP, and I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but the two words that come to mind are flim flam.

I am not offended. I respect your difference of opinion.

Someone once tried to flim flam my grandmother in a department store parking lot. Fortunately, she knew what was happening was not good and ran from it, but should she have followed through with the flim flammers request, she wouldn't have realized and regretted her choice until damage had been done.

Really, isn't the problem lack of informed consent?

The problem as I see it, is a difference of opinion as to what qualifies as "informed consent" with regards to the Church. This is the very issue currently under examination in this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I'm sure you can find some fallacy in your big book to fit your accusation. As has been pointed out, ex Mormons aren't "afraid" the church isn't fully disclosing its history to investigators, they are just claiming it and are probably a little angry about it. I'm not afraid that tobacco companies ignore and downplay the dangers of smoking. But as a further issue that you might be missing, part of the discussion revolves around the fact that people are actually "converted" to the church. And in the context of this discussion, it's niether fear nor anger but simply a matter of fact that has to be put on the table, that many of these people wouldn't have ever been converted had they heard both sides of the story. If children are educated properly, their chances of taking up smoking are less.

Again, feel free to label the sentiments however you please. It is not the semantics that I wish to explore, but determining what is reasonable for the Church to teach investigators?

In order to make that determination, wouldn' it make sense to first determine what the objective is behind the missionary lessons?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Gadianton]

I'm sure you can find some fallacy in your big book to fit your accusation. As has been pointed out, ex Mormons aren't "afraid" the church isn't fully disclosing its history to investigators, they are just claiming it and are probably a little angry about it. I'm not afraid that tobacco companies ignore and downplay the dangers of smoking. But as a further issue that you might be missing, part of the discussion revolves around the fact that people are actually "converted" to the church. And in the context of this discussion, it's niether fear nor anger but simply a matter of fact that has to be put on the table, that many of these people wouldn't have ever been converted had they heard both sides of the story. If children are educated properly, their chances of taking up smoking are less.

Again, feel free to label the sentiments however you please. It is not the semantics that I wish to explore, but determining what is reasonable for the Church to teach investigators?

In order to make that determination, wouldn' it make sense to first determine what the objective is behind the missionary lessons?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, it isn't reasonable for the church to teach investigators the truth about its past, just as it would not be reasonable for tobbacco companies to take the initiative and split their ads into two sections. The objective of the church is to make everyone Mormon like it's the objective of Camel to make everyone smoke. It would be downright nuts for the church to offer its real history to that end.

Oh, I personally wouldn't want to align myself with a product where I'd have to worry about the risks of honest disclosure.

[_wenglund]

I'm sure you can find some fallacy in your big book to fit your accusation. As has been pointed out, ex Mormons aren't "afraid" the church isn't fully disclosing its history to investigators, they are just claiming it and are probably a little angry about it. I'm not afraid that tobacco companies ignore and downplay the dangers of smoking. But as a further issue that you might be missing, part of the discussion revolves around the fact that people are actually "converted" to the church. And in the context of this discussion, it's niether fear nor anger but simply a matter of fact that has to be put on the table, that many of these people wouldn't have ever been converted had they heard both sides of the story. If children are educated properly, their chances of taking up smoking are less.

Again, feel free to label the sentiments however you please. It is not the semantics that I wish to explore, but determining what is reasonable for the Church to teach investigators?

In order to make that determination, wouldn' it make sense to first determine what the objective is behind the missionary lessons?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, it isn't reasonable for the church to teach investigators the truth about its past, just as it would not be reasonable for tobbacco companies to take the initiative and split their ads into two sections. The objective of the church is to make everyone Mormon like it's the objective of Camel to make everyone smoke. It would be downright nuts for the church to offer its real history to that end.

Oh, I personally wouldn't want to align myself with a product where I'd have to worry about the risks of honest disclosure.

That is an interesting and self-serving caricature of the issue, though irrelevant in several key ways--not the least of which is that you can't legally or rationally demonstrate that the Church causes actual harm to its adherent (not to be confused with people causing harm to themselves through disobedience or disbelief). In fact, if you wish to talk in term of health, then social statistics are well against you.

But, I suppose that if the weakness of your position is such a poor match when using a reasonable analogy, then your confirmation bias doessn't leave you with much choice but to resort to caricatures. Oh well.

Let's see...you guys have trotted out the Shady investment analogy, the flim flam analogy, and now the tobacco analogy. What's next...Nazi analogy?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-