Meet Kevin Graham

[Guest]

People like BCspace haven't had much exposure to other societies, and it shows.

I think the problem here is that you place faith in wisdom that doesn't necessarily test out to be true. For example, I work side by side with the health care system in the US (not insurance) and I am fairly inimate with it's details, how it works and why it doesn't work.

I was exactly like him. Having been born and raised in SE USA, I come from a conservative republican background. I drove to work every day listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

I was conservative (but never Republican) well before Rush and Sean got their start. I've seen how the US has fallen from grace after so much promise and am able to communicate it quite rationally and cogently. The bottom line is that the left, unable to get their agenda on the map by revolution, has taken the slower approach of subverting democracy.

I think the problem is that people like Kevin Graham have bought into the populist message hook line and sinker without ever learning the lessons of economics. My generation may indeed be the last who had that knowledge as a general matter of course. Now you would have to go to school (as I did as well) and probably have to wade through professorial ideologies before arriving at the truth locked away in a basement lavatory with no stairs and a sign saying "beware of the leopard".

I remember BCspace was a huge fan of Glenn Beck two years ago before anyone had ever heard of the guy.

Actually, I never was a fan of Beck because I thought he was milquetoast.

So his process of indoctrination goes much deeper than mine did. He has allowed himself to be completely possessed by this idiot, Beck. His posts sound exactly like Beck's rants. Fact free, yet full of arrogant confidence. His numerous posts about anti-Americanism and socialism would serve to humor most Economics professors.

Left wing talking points. KG, like most left wingers (who knowing the futility of their own arguments often present themselves as "centrist"), was unable to speak coherently on health care so now he tries to poison the well. It's almost as if he got his first lessons from Rules for Radicals.

I notice Zeyala is now hiding in the Brazilian embassy. Must be a correlation here somehow with KG's ideology....

But has KG also fallen in with Chavez, Clinton, and Obama about the erroneous notion that Zeyala was ousted in a military coup? I think there is a good chance he has and if so, this alone shows forth his Marxist "qualities".

You know, KG is able to bring facts and details to the conversation regarding Islam and the KEP, but he's long on invective when it comes to politics. Come back when you actually have something KG.

[_Kevin Graham]

But Kevin whose fault is that, the Church or yours. No one forced you to join the church, no one forced you to marry within the Church that was all your decision. Albeit in many cases a man or woman will have a religious ceremony to please the religious spouse, whose religion makes demands. But you own your own decisions.

Marg,

I don't see how your comments can even begin to pertain to what I said (do you really think it is MY fault that the Church is authoritarian?)

But you seem to be confused with the facts:

1. I was told from day one that my family would not be able to attend my wedding, true. Nobody was surprised about that.

2. I was told from day one that they would not be able to attend a civil ceremony, false. This became news to me less than two weeks before the event.

In fact, I was told exactly the opposite before I was baptized. I raised this issue long before I was baptized. I was informed by my Mormon friend and the missionaries who taught me, that I would be able to have a civil wedding to accomodate my LDS family. That is what I was led to believe for 13 years. It turned out to be false. Only later through the years did I start hearing about this "ring ceremony" business. But people seem to think a ring ceremony and a civil wedding are the same (I direct your attention to BCspace's comment).

Moreover, everyone who was involved in preparing the reception for both events, were from Brasil. Their experience as LDS members led them to believe that there would be no problem if a civil ceremony took place before or after the temple sealing. So yes, this was news to us all.

You make it sound like I agreed to some contract that I allow the Church to instruct me on what I can and cannot do before or after a temple sealing, with respect to vowing devotion to my wife. Therefore, the problem is with me, and not the Church. Give me a break.

[_bcspace]

The handbook allows for a ring ceremony and does not discourage or encourage it. But it does suggest not to exchange vows. Anything more than that is really going to depend on the bishop thought really one can do their own ring ceremony without a bishop if they wish. The bish does not have to be there to do this.

That is correct. I've served in these areas and frankly, it sounds more like this is one of those offenses that KG has made up or embellished as an excuse to not believe. Virtually all ex mos do it in my experience.

[_marg]

Kevin,

Ok it's the church's fault. Meanwhile you still support your kids going to that "authoritarian" church.


Jason,

do you believe in the afterlife of 3 heavens, people actually living with their families in such a afterlife world etc.? I know Trevor worries about you discussing with me, I'm not trying to ridicule your belief. If you do believe such an afterlife your belief is what it is. That's not my interest. My impresssion is that you don't believe in such an afterlife, based on you saying you hold a deistic perspective. So what I'm wondering and you don't have to answer, just think about it, do you teach your daughter beliefs you don't actually hold such as a Mormon afterlife of families actually living as we do presently? Do you let your daughter know that most people in the world don't share those beliefs, that some people don't even believe in life after death, while others who do hold an afterlife belief do so in a different sort of one, and that no one knows what the afterlife is like, it's all speculation?

[_Jason Bourne]

Kevin,

Ok it's the church's fault. Meanwhile you still support your kids going to that "authoritarian" church.


Jason,

do you believe in the afterlife of 3 heavens, people actually living with their families in such a afterlife world etc.? I know Trevor worries about you discussing with me, I'm not trying to ridicule your belief. If you do believe such an afterlife your belief is what it is. That's not my interest. My impresssion is that you don't believe in such an afterlife, based on you saying you hold a deistic perspective. So what I'm wondering and you don't have to answer, just think about it, do you teach your daughter beliefs you don't actually hold such as a Mormon afterlife of families actually living as we do presently? Do you let your daughter know that most people in the world don't share those beliefs, that some people don't even believe in life after death, while others who do hold an afterlife belief do so in a different sort of one, and that no one knows what the afterlife is like, it's all speculation?

Marg

I have no idea what the afterlife really holds. I think the LDS version is as valid or invalid as any other. In other words nobody really knows for sure. And nobody really knows for sure if there even is an after life.

What and how I teach my daughter I think I will leave un-discussed here for now other than to say I do teach her about other faiths beliefs about the after life and that some don't believe in and after life at all. I walk a fine line on this one for a number of reasons.

But still you did not address my post to you that for a Mormon believer it is not as simple as you suggested to Kevin that it might seemingly be.

[_marg]

But still you did not address my post to you that for a Mormon believer it is not as simple as you suggested to Kevin that it might seemingly be.

Jason I didn't address it because it boils down to critical thinking. And you take exception to use of those words. Critical thinking entails not allowing authoritity to supercede one's own thinking.

What is happening when someone allows the church to dictate who can and can not attend their wedding? They are foregoing their own rational thinking on the matter. Same thing when someone holds the afterlife belief claims of the church. They are accepting those claims without evidence and relying upon church authority despite the fact that the claims are extremely extraordinary.

You say there is no proof of what the afterlife is like, so basically your answer to the church claims is that it's okay to accept them, no matter how extraordinary or extreme they are. I suppose it is okay to accept them but what is happening here is that the beliefs are affecting how someone acts. This is the sort of thing the "new atheists" are critical of. I say this because many people seem to misunderstand their point. Irrational religious beliefs affecting how someone acts and those actions having negative impacts on others are what they take issue with. In this case, Kevin's family was excluded from an important life event. Not the end of the world, other than it contributed to increased family discord.

[_Kevin Graham]

That is correct. I've served in these areas and frankly, it sounds more like this is one of those offenses that KG has made up or embellished as an excuse to not believe. Virtually all ex mos do it in my experience.

Made up? I got a friggin eye witness to the event you moron! Is she lying too? Did I lie to my family, and tell them we couldn't do a civil wedding, just so I could later tell this sad story? It makes it easier for you to lump all ex-mos in a basket, I know, but I always expected more from you.

Yeah, of course I made this up. I'm an ex-Mo. They all do it. The logic is overwhelming.

Nothing Jason has said contradicts my account. In fact I have plenty of people here who have experienced similar events. So what exactly am I supposed to be making up or "embellishing"? The fact is the Church feels it has the right to tell Mormon couples they cannot exchange vows outside the temple. If it were more upfront and honest, this would be one of those things it tells prospective converts.

You haven't been paying attention if you think this was an "excuse" for leaving the faith. The only excuse I needed was when I found out Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient documents. I complained about my wedding fiasco at FAIR for two years as an apologist right after the event. It was never an issue with my deconversion process. I know that throws a wrench in your whole, "he must be making it up to justify his apostasy" gambit, but those are the facts, and the record is clear for anyone who wants to do the necessary research on three different discussion forums since 2002.

[_Brackite]

...

As for his criticism of intolerant atheists, very often I find myself agreeing with him. When it comes to the Book of Abraham, he remains an invaluable resource.

Amen and Amen!!!

[_MsJack]

That is correct. I've served in these areas and frankly, it sounds more like this is one of those offenses that KG has made up or embellished as an excuse to not believe. Virtually all ex mos do it in my experience.

Made up? I got a friggin eye witness to the event you moron! Is she lying too?

I am blinking in disbelief.

Did Mormon apologetics jump the shark at some point?

Or has it always been this obtuse and I just grew up?

In fairness to Latter-day Saints though, Kevin, I have heard from numerous people around the Bloggernacle who agree that the temple wedding policy is a problem and ought to be changed, either by getting rid of the policy or by freely allowing elaborate ring ceremonies afterward with vows exchanged. Here's a couple of posts on it:

Temple Marriage Policy by Kevin Barney (Times & Seasons, February 28, 2005)

Dear fMh: Temple Marriage and the In-Laws by Guest (Feminist Mormon Housewives, July 25, 2007)

Non-Members at the Wedding and a Fair Deal by Seth R. (Nine Moons, June 17, 2009)

If you want to use this policy as an example of the church being invasive and authoritarian though, you'll get no argument from me.

[_marg]

...

As for his criticism of intolerant atheists, very often I find myself agreeing with him. When it comes to the Book of Abraham, he remains an invaluable resource.

Amen and Amen!!!

With regards to "intolerant atheists, I've seen Kevin argue strawman arguments against the "new atheists" attributing positions to them they don't hold.

I've seen Trevor uncritically fall for the strawmen arguments of Chris Hedges in a journal article he wrote criticizing the "new atheists". Albeit, Trevor after much discussion by others on this board, later noted he was wrong, however he should have been able to see the strawman arguments from the beginning if he was critically observant.

So I think a function of Trevor saying he agrees with Kevin on intolerant atheists and Kevin's argument against intolerant atheists, is that strawman arguments re "intolerant atheists" were set up, and then used to argue against, not necessarily intentionally.