Don't know what to call this thread... The End of Mormonism?

[_Darth J]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could divide everything against which we argue into a neat little false trichotomy? It would make arguing against any religion so much easier.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... &s_cid=s10

Kimball explained what he called the "three levels" of Mormon history, which he termed Levels A, B, and C. (Given my own background in philosophy, I might have chosen Hegel's terminology instead: "thesis," "antithesis" and "synthesis.")

[_Alfredo]

I suppose I could offer some thoughts, from an LDS perspective anyway. I've been told that most of the responses one might receive here are not LDS perspectives.

No need to tell me. The only reason I'm peeved for being banished from MAD is because nearly all responses were from the LDS perspective. Too bad I couldn't convince anyone to bring themselves to consider it from a perspective independent of these very comprehensive and sweeping worldviews. But I believe they are more sharply described as simply contingent assertions predicated upon religious experience.

May we examine your choice of words here - extreme... harmful indoctrination. Do you think you're likely to make many friends by describing someone's deeply held belief system in such a way? I reject these descriptors, and submit that the reality of Mormonism is quite the opposite of the picture you paint here.

I'm not trying to make friends. I'm trying to challenge myself. I'm pointing out something highly evident and you know exactly what I'm talking about. Because once you consider indoctrination from the perspective that Mormonism is not true, the way in which the church teaches children to view and behave concerning anything ostensibly "Anti-Mormon" is clearly a very harmful form of indoctrination which results in dissonance difficult to handle in the "exit environment" of Mormonism. It's the disconnect between the LDS perspective and this alternate view which, when left unacknowledged, explains the tendency for the faithful to completely overlook the embarrassing fact that indoctrination splits families which often creates emotionally and mentally extreme circumstances.

Sorry, I know my family must believe that my "life's compass" is being supernaturally influenced by an evil force which has clearly duped me into believing a soul destroying lie which will cost me some infinite potential after I leave a horrific and challenging existence. Something about this very humble idea just happen to fit the perception I have of myself and my life... so of course, no big deal, right?

To isolate my particular disagreement with your comment, I don't care what the Mormon "reality" is because I'm sure it's just another contingent assertion based upon the LDS perspective which my argument inherently rejects. The harmful and extreme indoctrination is only acknowledged as such independent of Mormon perspective.

The argument that kicked me out the door of MAD was simply this:

The Church demonstrably teaches and encourages the doctrine inculcates children with the irrational and premature tendency to summarily dismiss any idea or argument which leads you to deny the church as an evil anti-mormon invention and avoid it for fear of its supernatural ability to cause sinful doubt and thoughts of "the world". This is clearly contrary to the desire of apologists and Mormons to be accepted and respected as balanced and reasonable individuals who, as colloquially described, "just have a different perspective".

The question I asked MAD was this:

Should children be led to accept your view that there should be unquestionable obedience to the prophets and teachings of the church before children understand why one might accept that there should be unquestionable obedience to prophets and teachings of the church or even how to make this decision?

Again, let us examine the choice of descriptors here - systematically suppresses in children. Do you have any evidence for any of these statements, or are you speaking from a place of irrational anger?

It happens. Here's something else I said on MAD: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/568 ... 1209089468

The second half addressing DaddyG interests your thoughts.

So, I hope I'm welcomed because I'd like to spend some time here picking fights.

I assure you, dear friend, that you will be more than welcomed here. Though, do not expect many to fight back.

I don't. I expect them to avoid my arguments.

I don't find it convincing at all.

I'd like to hear about why it doesn't convince you in my thread. But I'm sure I'll mention it a few more times in this response...

I'd love any comments or disputes which would aid me in developing this argument.

An argument which has been attempted thousands of times since the beginnings of the restoration. With each failure comes another arrogant chap who believes she has finally created the end-all argument. I wish you luck in that.

I wish you luck in refuting it. If you dare... bwahahaahahah!

Wouldn't it be nice if we could divide everything against which we argue into a neat little false trichotomy? It would make arguing against any religion so much easier.

Yea, it would be a nice world to live in... I envy your conception of Anti-Mormonism. It's a bit intellectually lazy, but it sure functions well!

Not necessarily. Possible and true are distinct ideas. The idea of existence of life on other planets is possible, but we're still waiting to find out if it's true or not (it almost definitely is).

Of course not necessarily! There are two more categories!

I've seen no "seemingly damning evidence" presented against Mormonism, ever. Even if there were, however, faith is what religion is based upon, and it is therefore correct to appeal to it when discussing religion.

It's logically possible to attempt a valid appeal, sure. I suppose you don't mean any definition of "correct" which applies to the rational way in which we determine something as a proper subject of appeal? Because, last time I checked there's nothing rational about an act of faith, so why even care about any "appeal" made in "correctness".

I care about the argument from religious experience, but that's not all that I actually care about. I care about physical evidence, too. I care about textual analysis, for example. I also care about finding truths in my faith that can be applied to my life.

I'm referring to the widespread tendency for any argument to devolve into an contingent assertion based on the general assumption that Mormonism is true. A determination which was almost universally made, in the case of Mormon culture, during a religious experience.

Yes. Every individual religious experience is uniquely interpreted by each individual.

And unfortunately, the Mormon church neither practices or prescribes any method of interpretation of religious experience which isn't circularly based upon an interpreted religious experience.

Has it not been designed to deceive?

A million dollars for the correct answer to this question.

Million dollar hint: The correct answer lacks the suggestion that anything which causes you to doubt faith or authoritative doctrine and clergy can be safely dismissed as the devil's invention, curiously without a single synapse dedicated to rational consideration from a perspective which doesn't presuppose you should never doubt faith or authoritative doctrine and clergy. Very curious!

Incorrect. Mormon does not stand or fall on the reliable interpretation of religious experience.

Excuse me, but your church disagrees. What would the church be if they could not show that they can reliably interpret the religious experiences they claim provide them authority to be the one and only true church anyways?!?

A Church with no foundation.

So, what, it eventually becomes heat?

If you can create and preserve heat in a system which only borrows from itself... What do you mean?

Why do you believe this to be difficult? When I wasn't LDS, I examined my religious experiences in such a way. I've now been LDS for quite a long time.

And I'm nearly absolutely certain that your examination brought you to this conclusions through a very specialized method of interpretation which is most likely somehow circularly dependent upon you presupposing that your method of interpretation is reliable in the first place.

It's so difficult because it's where the Mormon perspective begins. You can't remove yourself from the system of thought which assumes that there is no valid perspective which denies the interpretations of this system. Mormonism depends on itself as the most reliable interpreter for considering any idea, even the idea that Mormonism is not a reliable interpreter. It questions the foundation of Mormon thought, so of course we should expect it would be difficult to accept.

Young man (or woman), I recommend you check your ego at the door. Thousands before you have tried, and thousands after you will try to bring down this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and none have or will succeed. Why makes you so special? It sounds like the most potent elitism is found within you.

Young man. Actually, young elder missionary if I never happened to resist indoctrination at an even earlier age. Now, I never implied that I intend to "bring down" the Church. I just pointed out that no progress can be made in providing exit to those who would benefit from exit, if we continue to allow Mormons to hide behind their worldview from which they can interpret any experience, even the experience of doubt, from the presupposition that Mormonism is true.

But trust me, I plan to make a dent.

Because clearly, you believe in some form of "elitism" which doesn't apply to the extremely uneasy idea that you're on the side of an unstoppable magical force which fuels the religion whose Church, members, and epistemic presuppositions will have the ultimate advantage over anything which questions this invincible and divinely controlled system. And don't forget, that anything which denies this enormously confident claim is presupposed to be delusional.

My reaction to this idea is exactly what you label as elitist. Those of us who aren't unnecessarily and emotionally disturbed by some forms of cultural expression might say something like, "no crap."

[_Alfredo]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could divide everything against which we argue into a neat little false trichotomy? It would make arguing against any religion so much easier.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... &s_cid=s10

Kimball explained what he called the "three levels" of Mormon history, which he termed Levels A, B, and C. (Given my own background in philosophy, I might have chosen Hegel's terminology instead: "thesis," "antithesis" and "synthesis.")

I don't understand why the singular interpretive lense used to fallaciously categorize argument called Anti-Mormonism didn't immediately come to mind. I thought my categories were generous with only 3 instead of 1!

[_Radex]

No need to tell me. The only reason I'm peeved for being banished from MAD is because nearly all responses were from the LDS perspective. Too bad I couldn't convince anyone to bring themselves to consider it from a perspective independent of these very comprehensive and sweeping worldviews. But I believe they are more sharply described as simply contingent assertions predicated upon religious experience.

So, you'd rather have the majority of responses come from a critical perspective? One which supports your current beliefs about the church? If so, I believe you're in the correct venue.

May we examine your choice of words here - extreme... harmful indoctrination. Do you think you're likely to make many friends by describing someone's deeply held belief system in such a way? I reject these descriptors, and submit that the reality of Mormonism is quite the opposite of the picture you paint here.

I'm not trying to make friends. I'm trying to challenge myself. I'm pointing out something highly evident and you know exactly what I'm talking about. Because once you consider indoctrination from the perspective that Mormonism is not true, the way in which the church teaches children to view and behave concerning anything ostensibly "Anti-Mormon" is clearly a very harmful form of indoctrination which results in dissonance difficult to handle in the "exit environment" of Mormonism. It's the disconnect between the LDS perspective and this alternate view which, when left unacknowledged, explains the tendency for the faithful to completely overlook the embarrassing fact that indoctrination splits families which often creates emotionally and mentally extreme circumstances.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying here, Alfredo: are you suggesting that when one "views indoctrination" from a critical perspective, the only conclusion is that the particular thing you've labeled "indoctrination" must be harmful?

The problem with that reasoning is that you've decided that harmful indoctrination exists within the church without showing evidence for it, or if you believe you have evidence for it, I'm unsure if you understand how to interpret it. Now then, granted, indoctrination happens all the time to everyone. We're indoctrinated into our countries, our cultures, our universities, etc. In that respect, of course there is indoctrination in religious institutions, but harmful? In most cases, call me old fashioned, I have a bit more faith in the human mind than to believe that there is a such thing as harmful indoctrination.

Sorry, I know my family must believe that my "life's compass" is being supernaturally influenced by an evil force which has clearly duped me into believing a soul destroying lie which will cost me some infinite potential after I leave a horrific and challenging existence. Something about this very humble idea just happen to fit the perception I have of myself and my life... so of course, no big deal, right?

They might believe that. I don't know your family. Do you believe that? You're the only one who matters, after all.

To isolate my particular disagreement with your comment, I don't care what the Mormon "reality" is because I'm sure it's just another contingent assertion based upon the LDS perspective which my argument inherently rejects. The harmful and extreme indoctrination is only acknowledged as such independent of Mormon perspective.

If your argument inherently rejects the LDS perspective, which perspective does it inherently accept, and can you demonstrate the effectiveness of that acceptance?

The argument that kicked me out the door of MAD was simply this:

The Church demonstrably teaches and encourages the doctrine inculcates children with the irrational and premature tendency to summarily dismiss any idea or argument which leads you to deny the church as an evil anti-mormon invention and avoid it for fear of its supernatural ability to cause sinful doubt and thoughts of "the world". This is clearly contrary to the desire of apologists and Mormons to be accepted and respected as balanced and reasonable individuals who, as colloquially described, "just have a different perspective".

Demonstrably? Would you please demonstrate it? Also, would you please put down the thesaurus?

The question I asked MAD was this:

Should children be led to accept your view that there should be unquestionable obedience to the prophets and teachings of the church before children understand why one might accept that there should be unquestionable obedience to prophets and teachings of the church or even how to make this decision?

I can answer that. Children should be led to accept whatever it is that their parents wish for them, with the exception of things that can harm themselves or others. That's it. It is not for you to set the standards, my friend.

It happens. Here's something else I said on MAD: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/568 ... 1209089468

I don't see a systematic suppression of children. Perhaps you'd like to point it out? (I am getting old).

The second half addressing DaddyG interests your thoughts.

Are you using Google translate?

I assure you, dear friend, that you will be more than welcomed here. Though, do not expect many to fight back.

I don't. I expect them to avoid my arguments.

Most members here will agree with your arguments, as long as they are disrespectful to the LDS faith and its people. Take comfort in that.

An argument which has been attempted thousands of times since the beginnings of the restoration. With each failure comes another arrogant chap who believes she has finally created the end-all argument. I wish you luck in that.

I wish you luck in refuting it. If you dare... bwahahaahahah!

I don't need to. It's been refuted hundreds of times. Read up, dear boy.

It's logically possible to attempt a valid appeal, sure. I suppose you don't mean any definition of "correct" which applies to the rational way in which we determine something as a proper subject of appeal? Because, last time I checked there's nothing rational about an act of faith, so why even care about any "appeal" made in "correctness".

I am not sure why you care so deeply, Alfredo. I certainly don't care whether you care. My faith is strong, and I can never deny it. It's something that lives inside of me.

I'm referring to the widespread tendency for any argument to devolve into an contingent assertion based on the general assumption that Mormonism is true. A determination which was almost universally made, in the case of Mormon culture, during a religious experience.

Refute away. When you have something valid, perhaps you'd like to inform the other critics that you're their new champion, having done something that couldn't be done since the dawn of the restoration.

But let me ask you: why do you deny that others have had religious experiences?

And unfortunately, the Mormon church neither practices or prescribes any method of interpretation of religious experience which isn't circularly based upon an interpreted religious experience.

The Mormon church cannot practice anything. It's a religious entity. It does prescribe to follow Moroni 10:4, however.

Million dollar hint: The correct answer lacks the suggestion that anything which causes you to doubt faith or authoritative doctrine and clergy can be safely dismissed as the devil's invention, curiously without a single synapse dedicated to rational consideration from a perspective which doesn't presuppose you should never doubt faith or authoritative doctrine and clergy. Very curious!

The well thought out critical materials are not necessarily meant to deceive, but the anti-Mormon materials usually are. I consider myself a rational person, and about 300 scholars over at MormonScholarsTestify.org do as well. Those are just the ones I know of. To imply that one cannot be both rational and Mormon is curious indeed!

Excuse me, but your church disagrees.

Does it? Are you a member of my church? Perhaps you could show me where my church disagrees?

What would the church be if they could not show that they can reliably interpret the religious experiences they claim provide them authority to be the one and only true church anyways?!?

A Church with no foundation.

I don't even know what that bunch of random words mean. Could you be more clear?

If you can create and preserve heat in a system which only borrows from itself... What do you mean?

Well, you said that the church was a "closed system" and I was referring to the law of entropy concerning such systems.

And I'm nearly absolutely certain that your examination brought you to this conclusions through a very specialized method of interpretation which is most likely somehow circularly dependent upon you presupposing that your method of interpretation is reliable in the first place.

Do you believe your eyes to be reliable, Alfredo?

But trust me, I plan to make a dent.

For what purpose?

Because clearly, you believe in some form of "elitism" which doesn't apply to the extremely uneasy idea that you're on the side of an unstoppable magical force which fuels the religion whose Church, members, and epistemic presuppositions will have the ultimate advantage over anything which questions this invincible and divinely controlled system. And don't forget, that anything which denies this enormously confident claim is presupposed to be delusional.

Please, my dear, tell me more about myself!

My reaction to this idea is exactly what you label as elitist. Those of us who aren't unnecessarily and emotionally disturbed by some forms of cultural expression might say something like, "no s***."

Those of us who see a young man with a bone to pick against the church might say something like "get a life."

[_Nightlion]

I guess it would be nice of me to clue you in on a secret about Mormons. They do not have spiritual experiences. A flash from the Eternal Semaphore is not an experience. It is a flash, a bit of news a green light or a red light. That is all there is to LDS spirituality.

You can trust me on this I have over forty years of controversy and conflict with them and find to a man and without exception world wide this assessment is true. They are kept from real spiritual experience by everything they have made of themselves otherwise. And the arrogance and pride of that construct is all they can defend. Today's LDS Church is NOT built upon a foundation of spiritual experience at all, else Zion would exist.

It is their pride in ownership of who they think they are. Nothing more. When a Mormon decides to own that mindset he changes his life accordingly and counts it as conversion or a mystic blessing of God. But the god of Mormonism is their own conceit and has been from the beginning, having only trampled upon the Holy One of Israel in their pompous disregard of all that Christ has spoken, all the more especially to them in the Restoration.

You are tilting at windmills pal.

[_Alfredo]

Radex,

Clearly, you and I disagree... But it seems to me just as clear that I'm the only one interested in discovering whether there is a resolution. Your reluctance to directly challenge my convictions, as I've invited you to several times, only calls your own convictions into question. You seem only interested in constantly suggesting, without evidence, that I'm completely deluded in my efforts to challenge my thoughts. Your only responses to my arguments have been to indirectly defend preconceptions you've yet to explain.

So, this post concerns my position and I intend to direct the threads of our conversation to better serve progress in understanding it. I was going to make a post addressing the few related questions you have which I'd rather not leave unanswered, but contrary to your ignorant suggestions... I do have a life. If there's any question I miss and you'd like me to answer, please ask again.

To begin, I care so much for really only one reason: I like to challenge and develop myself and my ideas, many of which are relevant to my indoctrination. That's why this post is so long... I spend a lot of time developing my ideas and I really want them to be challenged. If you find the need to focus on why I care and ignore the rest of this extensive and carefully formed post... then I can only imagine we share no mutual interest.

But I do believe one of the reasons many should care about the children who are harmfully indoctrinated in Mormon culture because, sorry, it's exceptionally evident and integral to Mormon doctrine.

Mormon parents often teach their kids, as the Church specifically instructs, to avoid or dismiss anything which denies Mormon teachings as "Anti-Mormon" and kids buy into this, period. This is the evidence. They're led to believe in a worldview which will always serve itself before they're capable of understanding why they accept this paradigm.

If we're interested in giving our kids the proper chance to decide whether Mormonism is true, I don't see how we're doing anything but harm by inculcating within their minds the idea that Mormonism has the proper answer for any question, even the question of whether Mormonism always has the answer. Especially before they are even capable of understanding such complicated questions, when we also must admit that we expect they will. I've already mentioned that the only excuse for this practice is to deny the church's instruction or fails to account for the child's ability to make their own decision now or later in life.

You're not likely to see the harm, because as I've predicted... no apologist is likely to break away from the Mormon paradigm and consider alternate views.

The longer you continue in your usual way, the more you confirm the "tendency for any argument to devolve into a contingent assertion based on the presupposition that Mormonism is true. A determination which was almost universally made, in the case of Mormon culture, during a religious experience."

In other words, this is to say that when you dig and fight to the core of every defense of Mormonism is the simple presupposition that Mormonism is true, based on one argument: the argument from religious experience. This observation is made especially clear by the fact that religious experience is the number one and only reason someone converts to Mormonism in the first place and the only important motivating factor for an apologist.

To show that every argument need only depend on the presupposition that Mormonism is true, is to therefore demonstrate that every argument need only depend on the argument from religious experience.

To expound upon this idea even further, I've already made the obviously bold claim that every defense of Mormonism offered by apologists can be reduced to three categories:

1) Defend Mormonism as possible, given that Mormonism is true.
2) Defend Mormonism as true, by refuting negative argument.
3) Defend Mormonism as true, by giving positive argument.

And to show that each category depends upon the argument from religious experience, I've demonstrated that each category need only depend upon the presupposition that Mormonism is true to satisfy apologists...

1) Mormonism is defended as possible because the apologist presupposes Mormonism is true.
2) Concerning negative argument, Mormonism can be defended as true against any argument by simply appealing to the idea that anything which leads you to deny Mormonism can be safely dismissed as Anti-Mormon, without consideration, even if the argument seems convincing. This only serves to satisfy apologists, of course, given the presupposition that Mormonism is true.
3) Concerning positive argument, any argument is secondary and extraneous to the only contention need be doctrinally declared to be truly convincing, the argument from religious experience.

So every argument leads to one place and that's the argument from religious experience. So, concerning direct response to the argument against religious experience...

I CERTAINLY AM ACCUSING YOU AND ALL APOLOGISTS OF BEING OBTUSE AND AVERSE TO CONSIDERING ANY INTERPRETATION WHICH DOESN'T SERVE Mormonism.

Does any of this make sense yet?

To understanding my position requires that you consider the interpretive methods and conclusions which don't serve Mormonism AND the methods and conclusions which do and realize that there's no reliably way to choose between them; no judgement to be made.

I never claimed that Mormons don't have religious experiences... I claim they can't explain why we should trust they know how to interpret them without appealing to ideas which originate in the interpretation of religious experience to begin with, implying we can trust how religious experience is interpreted and clearly begs the question.

..and this is the vicious cycle or closed system which I believe no one can escape and remain a believer. Apologist's can't wrap their heads around a world in which Mormonism doesn't reliably interpret every idea.

What you continually fail to show you understand is the very relevant fact that Mormonism is a comprehensive paradigm. To attack it is indeed a bold claim, questioning millions of lives... but this claim is a neat little trick compared to the remarkable claim that Mormonism is the ultimate answer to everything, even which questions have answers we can't understand. Mormonism is treated as the proper interpretive starting point, context, and answer for any argument, person, idea and explains literally anything you can imagine. And it goes on to claim those who support it are moved by an unstoppable magical force which will never be defeated...
and of course, the claim that anything which leads you to deny Mormonism is an evil plot designed to deceive you, doomed to ultimate destruction.

Again, what you perceive as elitist in my words is my reaction to these ideas. OF COURSE YOU'RE OFFENDED. We're only here in the first place because our views are so radically different. I am rejecting one of the most elitist paradigms in existence and this explains every personal assumption you make about my motivation, life... and admitting you accept this paradigm leads me to conclude several things about you.

[_Alfredo]

I don't need to. It's been refuted hundreds
of times. Read up, dear boy.

If you've sufficiently studied hundreds of instances of refutation to determine they apply, then of course it must be trivial in ease to question the surely explicit fault in argument directly!

Go ahead. I'm seriously craving that simple question which I cannot answer... Seriously, I'm looking for the sharpest inquiry you can muster.

[_Radex]

Your diatribe below is exceptionally long, Alfredo, so you'll forgive me for only replying to the "important" pieces:

Radex,

Clearly, you and I disagree... But it seems to me just as clear that I'm the only one interested in discovering whether there is a resolution. Your reluctance to directly challenge my convictions, as I've invited you to several times, only calls your own convictions into question.

When you directly challenge something that remotely looks like a teaching or practice of my church, then I may directly challenge your challenges. Until then, I sense only great and very naïve anger, and I'm sorry that you're so caught up in hating my church.

So, this post concerns my position and I intend to direct the threads of our conversation to better serve progress in understanding it. I was going to make a post addressing the few related questions you have which I'd rather not leave unanswered, but contrary to your ignorant suggestions... I do have a life. If there's any question I miss and you'd like me to answer, please ask again.

Put down the thesaurus, please, kind sir.

To begin, I care so much for really only one reason: I like to challenge and develop myself and my ideas

Is there no other venue in which to challenge ideas... university perhaps?

many of which are relevant to my indoctrination. That's why this post is so long... I spend a lot of time developing my ideas and I really want them to be challenged. If you find the need to focus on why I care and ignore the rest of this extensive and carefully formed post... then I can only imagine we share no mutual interest.

The reason you'll likely get nowhere with me is because of your loaded statements, which I've pointed out before. "My indoctrination" is only a loaded and emotionally charged phase. Since I reject the very notion that you've been "indoctrinated" into the church anymore than you've been "indoctrinated" to not eat the yellow coloured snow, you'll have to demonstrate the claim.

But I do believe one of the reasons many should care about the children who are harmfully indoctrinated in Mormon culture because, sorry, it's exceptionally evident and integral to Mormon doctrine.

Yes, I realise you keep saying this, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Saying something multiple times does not make it true. No one is "harmfully indoctrinated" in the church.

Mormon parents often teach their kids, as the Church specifically instructs, to avoid or dismiss anything which denies Mormon teachings as "Anti-Mormon" and kids buy into this, period. This is the evidence. They're led to believe in a worldview which will always serve itself before they're capable of understanding why they accept this paradigm.

Yes, this is a repeat of the last post you wrote. You keep asserting these things, but you never demonstrate them.

If we're interested in giving our kids the proper chance to decide whether Mormonism is true, I don't see how we're doing anything but harm

Okay, at what age shall we say "choose your religion." One? Two? Five?

Shall parents not teach their children anything because it will "indoctrinate" them? Shall parents not teach their children that rotten dairy products will make you ill? That yellow snow tastes nasty? That hot things will burn you?

by inculcating within their minds the idea that Mormonism has the proper answer for any question,

And here's the kicker: it does.

Especially before they are even capable of understanding such complicated questions,

But, of course, they're capable of understanding the metaphysical and ontological nature of the study of God and religion straight away from the womb, right? Get real, man!

You're not likely to see the harm, because as I've predicted... no apologist is likely to break away from the Mormon paradigm and consider alternate views.

Are you?

This is rubbish, my good man. Come back to Christ, I implore you.

[_Alfredo]

Your diatribe below is exceptionally long, Alfredo, so you'll forgive me for only replying to the "important" pieces:

Fine by me. We'll focus on indoctrination then.

Put down the thesaurus, please, kind sir.

I don't know what you're talking about. If there's something specific about my writing that bothers you, tell me and I'll make any changes I find necessary to appease you.

Is there no other venue in which to challenge ideas... university perhaps?

Unfortunately, it seems you think you know much more about me than I do. I'd ask you to tell me what you're getting at here so I can realize it about myself, but I don't care.

Until then, I sense only great and very naïve anger, and I'm sorry that you're so caught up in hating my church.

This is rubbish, my good man. Come back to Christ, I implore you.

Should I ignore these personal attacks or would you care if I explained that Alfredo is the only proper judge of what Alfredo hates, is motivated by, or finds worthwhile... because I'm completely uninterested in doing so at this moment. Just drop it. I'll ignore any further assumptions concerning my personal motives.

To simply presume the other is incorrect and talk about it doesn't convince anyone, so full-stop on both sides with these contingent accusations before we've settled the question which causes our disagreement, please. Fair enough?

There. Now that there's nothing to distract us, let's focus.

When you directly challenge something that remotely looks like a teaching or practice of my church, then I may directly challenge your challenges.

I'd like to clarify a few things before re-presenting my main contention concerning indoctrination.

Please be certain... you wish to claim I haven't challenged anything which remotely resembles a teaching or practice of the LDS church?

The reason you'll likely get nowhere with me is because of your loaded statements, which I've pointed out before. "My indoctrination" is only a loaded and emotionally charged phase. Since I reject the very notion that you've been "indoctrinated" into the church anymore than you've been "indoctrinated" to not eat the yellow coloured snow, you'll have to demonstrate the claim.

Aren't contingent assertions distracting?

Ok. In order to demonstrate my contingent assertion to be supported, the differences between harmful indoctrination and educational indoctrination must be acknowledged. I'm sure you're aware of the differences, and I'd appreciate your demonstration of this very simple distinction so that we can move on.

Just want to confirm that you realize I never intended to question educational indoctrination, but to question whether specific teachings the church might claim are educational and beneficial actually serve the educational conception of indoctrination, rather than harmful.

[_Chap]

....

And here's the kicker: it does.

....

This is rubbish, my good man. Come back to Christ, I implore you.

There usually is little interest to be gained from the content of a Radex post. But the efforts to counterfeit British diction (why do that?) are amusing.

Radex, me old chum, I'm here to tell you that I have spent a lot of time with British English speakers as well as American English speakers. There are many American expressions that have found their way into the speech of educated British English speakers of the level you are trying to mimic. But 'here's the kicker' is not one of them.

(Why pretend to be a Brit when you clearly are not? Are you trying to conceal the fact that you are in fact someone else? If so, it might be wise to change more than your diction.)