Mormons want to be a mainstream faith but its based on lies.

[_DrW]

This happens will many organizations. I am not sure how you would determine how much responsibility that someone like Holland would bear. he is a result of the system started by Joseph Smith, who knew he was making up many things. I can only hope that the current leaders who probably believe it is true will make choices that move the church in a more positive direction. I don't expect it to change fast, but it has moved away from polygamy and a priesthood ban. Unfortunately outside society was the main influence for these changes.

Themis,

I understand what you are saying. And I do not doubt that many, perhaps most, would agree with you, especially if they were apologists. I most certainly do not agree, however.

Let's try this analogy. Let's say you were waiting for a flight and the inbound aircraft was late so you struck up a conversation with a pilot in the gate area who was deadheading on the flight. You ask him about his background and his training and he tells you that he has his JD and is an attorney (by the way, a number of United pilots, especially those based in Chicago, are attorneys).

Does the fact that the pilot was trained as an attorney in any way excuse him from the responsibility to understand the physics, aerodynamics, meteorology, navigation, aircraft operation, etc. required for him to be a competent and safe pilot?

Would you fly with a pilot who told you that he couldn't really explain how a jet engine works but then said, in all earnestness, that his 750,000 lb. aircraft was able to lift off of the runway and fly by the gift and power of God?

What is he told you that the first thing he did in an emergency was to pray? (by the way, you do know that this is exactly what happened in the TunisAir crash in 2005 that killed 16. The praying pilot got 10 years in prison for his faith.)

Does the fact that Holland was not trained in science give him the right to make false statements on central issues of science?

Does it give him the right to relay falsehoods to children and students, many of whom know better, as to the natural history of the world?

As I stated before, if an educated Church leader is willing to stand up in front of people and lie about such widely understood issues as the separation of the continents of the Eastern and western Hemispheres, why should anyone believe anything he says?

Really.

Why should Church leaders be held to a lesser standard than pilots, or doctors, or attorneys, or any responsible professional who takes on the responsibility for the people who depend on him or her for truth and guidance?

If you decide to respond, please be sure to answer this last question.

[_sock puppet]

Why should Church leaders be held to a lesser standard than pilots, or doctors, or attorneys, or any responsible professional who takes on the responsibility for the people who depend on him or her for truth and guidance?

Well, if what Church leaders were talking about was at least as weighty if not weightier for Church members as is the physical safety of passengers on an airplane or patients of a doctor, or the legal and financial safety of clients of an attorney, then Church defenders would hold Church leaders to just as high if not higher standard than pilots, doctors and attorneys.

However, since there is no god or afterlife, it doesn't really matter what Church leaders say, and so goes the defense of their indiscretions with veracity and accuracy.

If there is a Mormon god and an afterlife, it would be of utmost importance that Church leaders know of that about which they speak, and speak only truth. But hey, since there is no Mormon god and afterlife, it really doesn't matter how damn dumb of a comment Holland makes about science.

[_DrW]

Why should Church leaders be held to a lesser standard than pilots, or doctors, or attorneys, or any responsible professional who takes on the responsibility for the people who depend on him or her for truth and guidance?

Well, if what Church leaders were talking about was at least as weighty if not weightier for Church members as is the physical safety of passengers on an airplane or patients of a doctor, or the legal and financial safety of clients of an attorney, then Church defenders would hold Church leaders to just as high if not higher standard than pilots, doctors and attorneys.

However, since there is no god or afterlife, it doesn't really matter what Church leaders say, and so goes the defense of their indiscretions with veracity and accuracy.

If there is a Mormon god and an afterlife, it would be of utmost importance that Church leaders know of that about which they speak, and speak only truth. But hey, since there is no Mormon god and afterlife, it really doesn't matter how damn dumb of a comment Holland makes about science.

If the "falsehoods" of Mormonism were not directly responsible for ruining the lives of thousands of women through polygamy, sanctioned adultery and continued unbridled misogyny, if it were not for the hundreds of gay men who have committed suicide because the Church they had grown up in decided that they were no longer worthy members and their parents and families effectively disowned or abandoned them, if it were not for the lies regarding illegal contributions made to an important political campaign in another state, then I guess I might agree that LDS Church leaders are impotent, unimportant and without responsibility when it comes to the lives and well being of their followers.

As of now, I remain unconvinced.

[_sock puppet]

Why should Church leaders be held to a lesser standard than pilots, or doctors, or attorneys, or any responsible professional who takes on the responsibility for the people who depend on him or her for truth and guidance?

Well, if what Church leaders were talking about was at least as weighty if not weightier for Church members as is the physical safety of passengers on an airplane or patients of a doctor, or the legal and financial safety of clients of an attorney, then Church defenders would hold Church leaders to just as high if not higher standard than pilots, doctors and attorneys.

However, since there is no god or afterlife, it doesn't really matter what Church leaders say, and so goes the defense of their indiscretions with veracity and accuracy.

If there is a Mormon god and an afterlife, it would be of utmost importance that Church leaders know of that about which they speak, and speak only truth. But hey, since there is no Mormon god and afterlife, it really doesn't matter how damn dumb of a comment Holland makes about science.

If the "falsehoods" of Mormonism were not directly responsible for ruining the lives of thousands of women through polygamy, sanctioned adultery and continued unbridled misogyny, if it were not for the hundreds of gay men who have committed suicide because the Church they had grown up in decided that they were no longer worthy members and their parents and families effectively disowned or abandoned them, if it were not for the lies regarding illegal contributions made to an important political campaign in another state, then I guess I might agree that LDS Church leaders are impotent, unimportant and without responsibility when it comes to the lives and well being of their followers.

As of now, I remain unconvinced.

I agree that more lies can damage the already deluded, and how they treat themselves and others. I was simply pointing out how paradoxical it is for Mormon defenders to want to hold Mormon leaders to lesser standards than real world professionals, but then to claim what those Mormon leaders are doing and saying is more important.

[_Themis]

Themis,

I understand what you are saying. And I do not doubt that many, perhaps most, would agree with you, especially if they were apologists. I most certainly do not agree, however.

That's fine.

Let's try this analogy. Let's say you were waiting for a flight and the inbound aircraft was late so you struck up a conversation with a pilot in the gate area who was deadheading on the flight. You ask him about his background and his training and he tells you that he has his JD and is an attorney (by the way, a number of United pilots, especially those based in Chicago, are attorneys).

Does the fact that the pilot was trained as an attorney in any way excuse him from the responsibility to understand the physics, aerodynamics, meteorology, navigation, aircraft operation, etc. required for him to be a competent and safe pilot?

He/she is trained to understand them to a certain extent in order to safely fly the plane. Being an attorney has nothing to do with it.

Does the fact that Holland was not trained in science give him the right to make false statements on central issues of science?

Everyone has the right. People do it all the time, thinking they are right. You admit that he is not trained, but seem to want to hold him responsible to understand things he probably has never studied. His religion taught him some things about the world around him that are incorrect, and he seems to honestly believe they are correct.

Does it give him the right to relay falsehoods to children and students, many of whom know better, as to the natural history of the world?

Sure. Anyone has the right to express what they think is right, even if they are wrong. Lots of children do know more then Holland about the natural world around them.

As I stated before, if an educated Church leader is willing to stand up in front of people and lie about such widely understood issues as the separation of the continents of the Eastern and western Hemispheres, why should anyone believe anything he says?

So you think he knows that what he is saying is not true? I am not asking about whether he should know, but whether you think he knows what he is saying is not correct. If he is then yes he is lying. If he is not then no he is not lying, only expressing falsehoods.

Why should Church leaders be held to a lesser standard than pilots, or doctors, or attorneys, or any responsible professional who takes on the responsibility for the people who depend on him or her for truth and guidance?

Church leaders are not responsible for flying people around, nor are they responsible for giving them advice on health or legal issues. I do agree that some of the things they say and do have negative consequences. It could be worse. They don't do like the
some groups who rely solely on spiritual healing.

[_DrW]

Themis,

I understand what you are saying. And I do not doubt that many, perhaps most, would agree with you, especially if they were apologists. I most certainly do not agree, however.

That's fine.

Let's try this analogy. Let's say you were waiting for a flight and the inbound aircraft was late so you struck up a conversation with a pilot in the gate area who was deadheading on the flight. You ask him about his background and his training and he tells you that he has his JD and is an attorney (by the way, a number of United pilots, especially those based in Chicago, are attorneys).

Does the fact that the pilot was trained as an attorney in any way excuse him from the responsibility to understand the physics, aerodynamics, meteorology, navigation, aircraft operation, etc. required for him to be a competent and safe pilot?

He/she is trained to understand them to a certain extent in order to safely fly the plane. Being an attorney has nothing to do with it.

Does the fact that Holland was not trained in science give him the right to make false statements on central issues of science?

Everyone has the right. People do it all the time, thinking they are right. You admit that he is not trained, but seem to want to hold him responsible to understand things he probably has never studied. His religion taught him some things about the world around him that are incorrect, and he seems to honestly believe they are correct.

Does it give him the right to relay falsehoods to children and students, many of whom know better, as to the natural history of the world?

Sure. Anyone has the right to express what they think is right, even if they are wrong. Lots of children do know more then Holland about the natural world around them.

As I stated before, if an educated Church leader is willing to stand up in front of people and lie about such widely understood issues as the separation of the continents of the Eastern and western Hemispheres, why should anyone believe anything he says?

So you think he knows that what he is saying is not true? I am not asking about whether he should know, but whether you think he knows what he is saying is not correct. If he is then yes he is lying. If he is not then no he is not lying, only expressing falsehoods.

Why should Church leaders be held to a lesser standard than pilots, or doctors, or attorneys, or any responsible professional who takes on the responsibility for the people who depend on him or her for truth and guidance?

Church leaders are not responsible for flying people around, nor are they responsible for giving them advice on health or legal issues. I do agree that some of the things they say and do have negative consequences. It could be worse. They don't do like the
some groups who rely solely on spiritual healing.

"It could be worse" is not a very convincing argument, is it?

[_Darth J]

No one's been able to find a lie in LDS doctrine.

According to official LDS doctrine (published LDS curriculum), Official Declaration 1, which was canonized as scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants, is a lie.

D&C--Official Declaration 1

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

Gospel Study: Polygamy (Plural Marriage)

Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.

Let me reiterate: according to official LDS doctrine, Wilford Woodruff lied in his statement that came to be known as the Manifesto, and the Church lied when it canonized that statement.

[_Darth J]

No one's been able to find a lie in LDS doctrine.

According to official LDS doctrine (published LDS curriculum), Official Declaration 1, which was canonized as scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants, is a lie.

D&C--Official Declaration 1

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

Gospel Study: Polygamy (Plural Marriage)

Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.

Let me reiterate: according to official LDS doctrine, Wilford Woodruff lied in his statement that came to be known as the Manifesto, and the Church lied when it canonized that statement.

Bump for bcspace.

[_Themis]

"It could be worse" is not a very convincing argument, is it?

Depends on what you are talking about. I was referring to spiritual healing and how the church encourages members to use the medical establishment in all their health issues as well as using the supposed priesthood in healing. This is a far better approach then some groups who discourage the use of secular medicine. This is dangerous. So yes, I would say it is a convincing argument. Not that it has much to do with whether Holland is lying, which I think he is not.