Thirty Years from now

[_harmony]

Most of us were children of the faithful. That is no kind of insurance.

I believe the numbers (few though we get from the church) show that nowhere near 50% of the children of the faithful eventually reject the church. Were that the case (50% of the faithful falling away), we'd be seeing some strategy from SLCentral to shore them up. The majority, I think the vast majority, of the inactives are converts. And I think SLCentral knows this and thinks of converts as expendable.

As Merc said: the majority of the solid growth, the growth that sticks to the church throughout their life, comes from BIC members... ie, the children of the faithful. We converts are expendable.

As for those who are former members here, you are a small minority (but vocal!), in comparison to those who stay (and say nothing).

[_maklelan]

How? Once the initiate has left the temple for the first time there is still the empty feeling created by the giant let-down. There is no special useful information passed to the initiated other than stupid handshakes and funny underwear. I and many others discussing the temple in my youth expected far reaching special information that validated Mormonism. All we got were hokey practices, a movie and naked touching in initiatory.

Actually I can't say that I was horribly shocked. I went through my endowment fully knowing that there were no special aspects. Its a let-down. Even my wife commented on ow weird it all was.

I found insights all over the place. The initiatories were especially significant for me, and the actual endowment taught me a lot. That was only a year after I joined the church, though, so maybe I wasn't already bored with the church.

[_Mercury]

How? Once the initiate has left the temple for the first time there is still the empty feeling created by the giant let-down. There is no special useful information passed to the initiated other than stupid handshakes and funny underwear. I and many others discussing the temple in my youth expected far reaching special information that validated Mormonism. All we got were hokey practices, a movie and naked touching in initiatory.

Actually I can't say that I was horribly shocked. I went through my endowment fully knowing that there were no special aspects. Its a let-down. Even my wife commented on ow weird it all was.

I found insights all over the place. The initiatories were especially significant for me, and the actual endowment taught me a lot. That was only a year after I joined the church, though, so maybe I wasn't already bored with the church.

One can always find meaning in something that has no intrinsic value, such as the temple game. Of course ou found symbolism in it. I can find more symbolism in a good art film.

Just because you are straining at gnats does not turn the gnats into gold.

[_maklelan]

One can always find meaning in something that has no intrinsic value, such as the temple game.

Just as others can fail to find symbolism in something that has deep and significant intrinsic value. Your only point seems to be that you presuppose the worthless nature of the temple. We already know that. Tell us something relevant.

Of course ou found symbolism in it. I can find more symbolism in a good art film.

More symbolism than you found in the temple, or can you find more symbolism than I found in the temple?

Just because you are straining at gnats does not turn the gnats into gold.

With zingers like that who needs logic?

[_Mercury]

One can always find meaning in something that has no intrinsic value, such as the temple game.

Just as others can fail to find symbolism in something that has deep and significant intrinsic value. Your only point seems to be that you presuppose the worthless nature of the temple. We already know that. Tell us something relevant.

Of course ou found symbolism in it. I can find more symbolism in a good art film.

More symbolism than you found in the temple, or can you find more symbolism than I found in the temple?

Just because you are straining at gnats does not turn the gnats into gold.

With zingers like that who needs logic?

This isn't a competition in who found more symbolism. You are not responding to my argument. Instead you are restating the original conjecture in that finding supposed symbolism in the temple somehow validates its authenticity.

And concerning the zinger, I think you got the point so its utility has been served. I'm glad you liked it. It is still within the context of my argument. A bad zinger would be a potshot, like calling you a douchebag.

[_maklelan]

This isn't a competition in who found more symbolism.

I didn't say it was, but you tried to insist the fact that you found no symbolism in the temple indicated something about the intrinsic value of the temple. That's clearly a fallacious argument, and I pointed that out. In response you simply asserted that the temple lacked intrinsic value, using your appreciation of art movies as some kind support for that conclusion, when it really just appeals to the same fallacy. Your ability to extrapolate meaning from something has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning inherent in that thing.

You are not responding to my argument.

Because your argument was just a false inference. I pointed that out. I'm under no obligation to respond to a fallacious argument.

Instead you are restating the original conjecture in that finding supposed symbolism in the temple somehow validates its authenticity.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. I was merely showing that your inability to find meaning in no way precluded its authenticity. Don't put word in my mouth.

And concerning the zinger, I think you got the point so its utility has been served.

If your point was that when you have no real argument you just resort to what you think are witty little insults, I got the point, but I've known that for quite some time.

I'm glad you liked it. It is still within the context of my argument. A bad zinger would be a potshot, like calling you a douchebag.

And you've already shown you're not at all above calling people douchebags.

You didn't really say anything with your comment except to show that you don't intend to support your conclusions, but rather just reassert them in different ways. When you do that I'm just going to point out that you're just trying to zing people and not engage any real debate.

[_harmony]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, so bear with me.

1. The temple endowment is very very similiar to Masonic rites.

2. Masonic rites may (or may not?) have intrinsic value to those who participate in them (never having participated in them, I don't know).

3. If the endowment and Masonic rites, being so similiar, create the same reaction from the participants (whatever that reaction is), how can both be said to have intrinsic value?

[_Mercury]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, so bear with me.

1. The temple endowment is very very similiar to Masonic rites.

2. Masonic rites may (or may not?) have intrinsic value to those who participate in them (never having participated in them, I don't know).

3. If the endowment and Masonic rites, being so similiar, create the same reaction from the participants (whatever that reaction is), how can both be said to have intrinsic value?

Having been through both I can say that the modern temple ceremony is worthless to the participant outside of justifying an ignorant way of life.

On the other hand Masonic ceremony is full of applicable utilitarian approaches to life.

[_harmony]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, so bear with me.

1. The temple endowment is very very similiar to Masonic rites.

2. Masonic rites may (or may not?) have intrinsic value to those who participate in them (never having participated in them, I don't know).

3. If the endowment and Masonic rites, being so similiar, create the same reaction from the participants (whatever that reaction is), how can both be said to have intrinsic value?

Having been through both I can say that the modern temple ceremony is worthless to the participant outside of justifying an ignorant way of life.

On the other hand Masonic ceremony is full of applicable utilitarian approaches to life.

My understanding was they were virtually the same ceremony.

[_Mercury]

My understanding was they were virtually the same ceremony.

Far from it, though they share similarities.