Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Trevor]

2. Because all to many people would still rather scavenge for scraps in the dumpster than dine at the table.

Here it is folks, Coggy's banquet:

[_Coggins7]

Tal has never given me the impression that he is a liar. Tal is a bright and creative autodidact--a much better one than Coggins, by the way--who gets carried away. Still, I am impressed with his intelligence and writing style. I also think that his Salamander Society submissions are hilarious. I am envious that they are better than my few contributions.

To each his own. I've found, on the whole, Tal's Romper Room scientism-I'm fairly certain acquired as an afterthought to his apostasy from the Gospel-to have the appearance of sophistication, but denying the power thereof.

Tal represents, in my opinion, the worst of pop naturalist reductionism: a patina of philosophical sophistication masking little more than a deep psychological animus towards a theistic world view that has roots in characterological attributes, less noble claims of objective intellectual rigor.

[_Trevor]

You are, as usual, so very short on principle or detail, and very long on nebulous innuendo.

As usual, full of withering condescension and empty of substance.

[_Coggins7]

2. Because all to many people would still rather scavenge for scraps in the dumpster than dine at the table.

Here it is folks, Coggy's banquet:

You know, Trevor, you seem to be degenerating intellectually and psychologically by the post. Under normal circumstances, I'd assume the continued posting of satirical photos, graphics, and ad hominem attacks as the work of an adolescent.

Substance from you has always been sparse, but its moving towards nonexistence.

Scratch's influence on this board seems to be pervasive.

[Guest]

To each his own. I've found, on the whole, Tal's Romper Room scientism-I'm fairly certain acquired as an afterthought to his apostasy from the Gospel-to have the appearance of sophistication, but denying the power thereof.

Denying the power thereof? Coggins, your attempt at being clever has resulted in utter nonsense.

Tal represents, in my opinion, the worst of pop naturalist reductionism: a patina of philosophical sophistication masking little more than a deep psychological animus towards a theistic world view that has roots in characterological attributes, less noble claims of objective intellectual rigor.

Well, if your opinion were worth a damn, that might mean something. "Characterological" attributes? WTF?!?!?!

edited for grammar.

[_Trevor]

You know, Trevor, you seem to be degenerating intellectually and psychologically by the post. Under normal circumstances, I'd assume the continued posting of satirical photos, graphics, and ad hominem attacks as the work of an adolescent.

Substance from you has always been sparse, but its moving towards nonexistence.

Scratch's influence on this board seems to be pervasive.

Perhaps this is why you feel so comfortable here, Coggins. If you don't like it, you are free to bugger off.

[_Coggins7]

And doubt is not a sin.

Your own church leaders say otherwise.

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no discussion, it should mark the end of controversy." Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 345.

That statement in the IE was soundly refuted by then-President of the Church George Albert Smith.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
Salt Lake City, Utah
December 7, 1945

Dr. J. Raymond Cope
First Unitarian Society
13th East at 6th South Street
Salt Lake City, Utah

My dear Dr. Cope:

I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on "a short religious editorial prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled "Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'". You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.
I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.
The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.
The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.
In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

"Know this, that every soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be,
For this eternal truth is given
That God will force no man to heaven."

Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance.

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith [signed]

An excellent example of the difference between official church doctrines and positions and the unguarded or intemperate statements of some leaders that express personal opinions in, unfortunately, an authoritative manner. This is also an example of how the human factor within the Church admits and corrects such misunderstandings when they occur.

The fact that critics continue, to this very hour, to use the tactic of taking single, isolated statements of individual leaders and emphasizing them at the expense of a much larger body of teaching that refutes or modifies that statement, is indicative of just how disparate and shallow the critics arsenal really is.

[_Coggins7]

And yet, it is beginning all over again. I have never met a liberal who knew anything at all about history or economics.

And there is, in my wholly ignorant and philistine opinion, a very good reason for this state of affairs, which one could trace all the way back to Marx and the Jacobin revolution: history and economics (and, perhaps in particular, political economy) is a mortal threat to ideological purity. Ideology, as a grand Manichean scheme of social reorganization and sanctification, and as a search for ultimate solutions to the problems of the human condition through politics (what Thomas Sowell calls "the quest for cosmic justice) cannot tolerate, to paraphrase one of the most popular present representatives of this world view, any "inconvenient truths".

This is what gives Leftism its totalitarian cast and even its more moderate versions (democratic socialism, Fabianism, New Deal/Great Society welfare state socialism etc.) its authoritarian impulses and predilections (which, as Heyek pointed out, will lead, if given full reign, ultimately to ever greater levels of coerciveness).

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi all

I just posted a few things on Dr. Shades's new thread about this, in case anyone's interested. Turns out he's not allowed to post things on MAD.

[_Coggins7]

In what sense, and "eternal" one? Could you be a little more specific as to how you think Tal has as much to lose as the stake president does when he claims the stake president voiced sentiments of doubt about certain aspects of the Church's message?

I think Tal's loss is, for the most part, internal, and has to do with ego and self justification re his apostasy from what, at some level, he may still know to be true.