Let's see where we can get with this

[_keithb]

Keith,

I'm going to disagree with, but only slightly.

There will always be adherants to some form a mystical or supernatural comfort blanket. Religion is one example.
For example, there are still a few people around who believe in and follow David Koresh. The structure may have gone but some people will hold on to the beliefs.

Mormonism is based on money.

That's the one thing that cause the Church a problem in terms of its longevity. And they are being clever about it. They have a significant principal sum that is invested and which they protect at all costs.
When times are tight they shed non-profit making costs, a good example being the janitors.

The Church is surviving primarily on it's returns on investments. Active membership runs somewhere less than 40% and only a proportion of those will be tithe payers. A proportion will also be receiving funds rather than giving funds. It's a problem.

You can see the emphasis that is constantly there about paying your tithing. FP letters, conference talks, lessons etc. Pay your tithing. In truth the Church really does need it, but not for the reasons members think. Without it they have to use the interest on the invested principal sum. When financial crisis hits (and the current one is longer and deeper than for a generation) then the Church has to dip into the principal sum as there isn't enough interest to pay the wages, as it were.

It's a formula that results corporately in bankruptcy.

Outgoings > Incomings = Bust

Now the Church can survive this for a while because it has a large principal sum invested. But that is currently being eroded and tithing income is declining. It's worth pointing out that tithing income is reducing at the same time as the Church claims increasing membership. That means converts in the main are of the need money variety rather than the give money type.

It will be the money that causes the biggest headaches in COB.

"you can buy anything in this world for money"
Even a religion it seems.

Another problem that the church is going to have long term is that they have a lot of assets in the church right now that would be hard to divest and hard to use to generate income (at least directly). For example, temples don't do much more than sit there. Sure, they help members to pay a full tithe, but if that is decreasing world-wide anyway, those temples start to lose value pretty fast.

Also, as the trend has been going over the past 20 years or so, the church is committed to cranking out more temples to keep up the illusion of explosive growth. Those things are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. They can cut costs somewhat by making mini-temples, but I suspect that only goes so far. Hell, with City Creek, if worse comes to worse, at least they can sell the thing, even at a loss. They can't even sell the temples; nobody wants to buy them and the members would be incensed.

Yep, the future financials of the church look bleak. I agree with you.

[_Darth J]

But Marg, as one of the more sanctimonious board nannies,

You can't help yourself right?

Nope. There is no factual basis whatsoever to the suggestion that you are board-nannying again.

Thanks for volunteering to referee between DrCamNC4Me and MsJack, by the way!

you are welcome to point out anywhere on the board where I have made fun of a real autistic person or belittled people having to deal with it, as opposed to my references to "de facto" and "intentional" autism when commenting on the way Stemelbow tries to present an argument.

Darth, the point is not whether you've made fun of any autistic person, you know that's not the point. I understand where Stem is coming from, it's not like you are the only one who resorts to attacks. It's just that you are simply another one. And yes your attack isn't huge, but you know it irritates him just the same.

Let's once again look at my words, and see if I am attacking Stemelbow personally, or his fatuous reasoning:


It may be "obvious" to you that people can still sin and be a prophet, but it is not quite so obvious to the Lord, if the D&C is to be believed----and read for what it says, instead of reading it with deliberate autism.

.......it's just a shame that Stem didn't respond..

Stem,

I was interested in seeing what your argument.......

That's where you lost everyone.

Darth anytime anyone argues with the intent of preventing an argument progressing it is fallacious argumentation. Doesn't matter whether you label it technically ad hom or not.

Obviously, my inviting him to explain his reasoning in a way that did not call for deliberate autism was intended to prevent an argument.

Or perhaps there was no argument he has made to be progressed, nor any basis from experience to believe that whatever might be called his "argument" is going to be progressed.

[_Darth J]

Dear ****tard:

I am comparing YOUR ARGUMENTS to autism.

That's not true at all. You are exploiting autism in your attempt to mock my reading ability or something. It was in poor taste. That's all.

Yet again, let us all return to WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID:

It may be "obvious" to you that people can still sin and be a prophet, but it is not quite so obvious to the Lord, if the D&C is to be believed----and read for what it says, instead of reading it with deliberate autism.

What would be a more acceptable way to refer to your preferred reading of the plain language of a religious text purporting to be God speaking directly to Joseph Smith in order to give Joseph commandments?

"Pre-meditated rape of the English language"? No, that might exploit rape victims.

"Intentionally ignoring what the words say and asserting things you made up on the spot instead and claiming that's what the words say"? No, that might be exploiting people with dyslexia or a learning disability.

"Arbitrary BS that is contrary to objective reality, which there is no reason to find persuasive except desperately clinging to a preconceived cherished belief"? No, that would exploit Mormon apologists.

I'll keep trying to think of a non-exploitative way to say why your stated "possibilities" would not be impressive to anyone whose I.Q. is higher than his or her shoe size.

But that isn't really the reason why I chose to stop the back and forth. I think this conversation between the two of us serve a great example of the problem I tried to outline in the OP. I'll try to sum it up for everyone here. I"m sweet like that.

DJ entered this discussion, essentially, by asking me questions about how I view my faith. I answered them as straight up as I could.

That this is as straight up as you can is kind of kafkaesque, actually.

That seemed fine. He then went on to suggest that in answering those questions I contradicted myself. I think he misread me, for I did not. he dropped it after I pointed that out.

That's true. There would have to be some kind of intelligible thesis presented before you would be able to contradict yourself.

He then resurrected an old thread of his in which he attempted to show that Joseph Smith was wrong for not following certain instructions in D&C 132. I then went ahead and pointed out if he is going to use D&C 132 as the means to prove he cannot be a prophet then we ought to set up parameters for what makes a prophet.

Which you never did. But making an inference from your chatbot-like posts, it appears that the parameter for being a prophet is that is name is "Joseph Smith."

And I pointed out in D&C 132, if he wishes to use it as the setting of parameters, has LORD saying Joseph is justified. I then argued that means any errors he might have made regarding polygamy pre-1843 were forgiven by God.

Which only has the minor drawback of being completely inconsistent with the verse that preceded it, the entirety of Section 132, the entirety of the Doctrine and Covenants, the rest of LDS scripture, and past and current LDS teachings.

But other than that........

ETA: Okay, other than that, it is begging the questions of:

1. Show me this purported super-secret, just-for-Joseph's-personal gratification revelation you are conveniently assuming to exist.

2. Why would God give rules in 1843 that were different from what you're assuming without evidence He revealed to Joseph Smith prior to that time?

He then said, essentially, well he still did not follow the instructions of 132 after 1843.

I responded, cool. But there is no reason to think, even if true, that means he is not a prophet of God. For all people sin, even prophets. He then went on to quote other passages which have God offering condemnations for sin, while choosing to read it that if sin occurs then the priesthood is taken from the man.

"The speed limit here is 25 miles per hour. There is a $100 fine for exceeding the speed limit."

Some of you might CHOOSE to read that as a prohibition against driving faster than 25 mph and imposing a $100 fine if you do drive faster than 25 mph.

I personally don't choose to read those passages so legalistically as he does. I responded by saying all people sin, so I don't see a reason to take those passages so hard-lined and legalistic.

You failed to offer any reason why that which purports to be law---the law of God---should not be read legalistically.

You failed to explain why, if Joseph Smith does not lose his prophetic powers for disobeying God, he lost the power to translate after screwing around with the Book of Mormon manuscript.

You failed to explain how "all people sin"---which is your assertion, not a statement from the D&C---trumps God saying that a man who has prophetic gifts will lose them if he acts in unrighteousness.

You failed to explain why the logical conclusion of your assertion is that Joseph Smith can do whatever he wants, and it doesn't matter because he could not possibly lose his prophetic gifts, and p.s., we're not a cult.

We quibbled about that for a few pages. He keeps propounding the same thing with the same, essentially, argument. It seems he misunderstands me, so I bowed out.

To me it all made for a pretty good example of what I had in mind in the OP.

That you really think this is an accurate characterization of the thread should, standing alone, be enough for any believing Latter-day Saint to immediately leave the Church so as not to have this kind of thinking imputed to them (guilt by association), or possibly to just never look at the internet again.