Just want to vent

[_Yahoo Bot]

This may be so, but the problem is LDS teaching itself. The believing spouse is left to worry over eternal consequences of their spouse's choice, FOR THEMSELVES.

So, let me get this correct here.

You think LDS doctrine teaches that a spouse may be consigned to the flames of lesser kingdom-hood by reason of the faithlessness of her spouse? My goodness, I've just never read that or heard that taught anywhere. I'll have to look that up.

[Guest]

This may be so, but the problem is LDS teaching itself. The believing spouse is left to worry over eternal consequences of their spouse's choice, FOR THEMSELVES.

So, let me get this correct here.

You think LDS doctrine teaches that a spouse may be consigned to the flames of lesser kingdom-hood by reason of the faithlessness of her spouse? My goodness, I've just never read that or heard that taught anywhere. I'll have to look that up.

...Mormons pretending to not believe what they believe...I know what I was taught, drilled into my head as a LDS teenager, so you can't BS me.

What happens to a Mormon who is not married to a Mormon in a Mormon temple...oh yeah, that's right, your god will separate you, as quick as a lightning bolt.

There is no such belief in Catholicism.

I don't know why you are pretending to believe a lot of things. Including, Mormons rejecting divorce. There is no doctrine in Mormonism that disallows divorce. A Mormon can divorce for any reason at any time.

[_DrW]

Don't claim credentials and then refuse to provide them.

You set yourself up for this by claiming them in the first place.

501(c)(3) organizations can be sued just like anybody else for false and fraudulent behavior. The fact they are non-profit is meaningless and you've got it plainly wrong. Charities and non-profits are sued successfully all the time.

The Church corporations are indeed 501(c)(3)s but that is only a tax convention. Section 501(c)(3) is in title 26, the Tax Code.

You're just boneheadedly wrong, but I tire of arguing the law on a religious board.

We all know that churches get sued. Apparently you did not read very carefully or look up the terms "detrimental reliance" and "charitable immunity".

Apparently you also did not read the part where I stated that I have already sent proof of credentials to another board member and he has verified them. Did I hear you say that you wanted to bother one of the moderators by having me send proof of my credentials (again)?

[_Tchild]

Sorry to hear about the home life and the separation Mercury.

I learned long ago not to discuss my viewpoints of Mormonism with believers, except on the vaguest and most general of terms. IF I were to discuss factual problems with LDS history that have been whitewashed, downplayed or recontextualized in a way to promote faith, I would also be very, very gentle with how I presented my viewpoint to a believer. I think that you can speak about it, but it has to be done delicately if at all.

[_Simon Belmont]

Apparently you also did not read the part where I stated that I have already sent proof of credentials to another board member and he has verified them. Did I hear you say that you wanted to bother one of the moderators by having me send proof of my credentials (again)?

Yeah, you sent your proof to Dr. Scratch, they guy with all the conspiracies about the "mopologists" and secret band of "informants." You sent proof of your credentials to the most untrustworthy person on this board. And why him? Because, of course, he is part of your tribe.

And when most of your posts consist of logical fallacies, malevolence, and braggadocio, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[_Hoops]

Because, of course, he is part of your tribe.

Dr. W and Shades are Jewish? Hmmm.... that explains a lot.

[Guest]

Apparently you also did not read the part where I stated that I have already sent proof of credentials to another board member and he has verified them. Did I hear you say that you wanted to bother one of the moderators by having me send proof of my credentials (again)?

Yeah, you sent your proof to Dr. Scratch, they guy with all the conspiracies about the "mopologists" and secret band of "informants." You sent proof of your credentials to the most untrustworthy person on this board. And why him? Because, of course, he is part of your tribe.

And when most of your posts consist of logical fallacies, malevolence, and braggadocio, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Simon,

I could swear that you stated in an earlier post that you did not doubt my credentials.

In another post, I remember you stating that my credential did not matter.

And now you are apparently calling both Dr. Scratch and me liars.

Which is it?

Is it that if everything I said about my background proves to be absolutely verifiable, you will have even more cognitive dissonance with which to cope?

Could it be that you have problems with the truth?

[_harmony]

I learned long ago not to discuss my viewpoints of Mormonism with believers, except on the vaguest and most general of terms. IF I were to discuss factual problems with LDS history that have been whitewashed, downplayed or recontextualized in a way to promote faith, I would also be very, very gentle with how I presented my viewpoint to a believer. I think that you can speak about it, but it has to be done delicately if at all.

I prefer to not be the cause of someone else going through this.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

I could swear that you stated in an earlier post that you did not doubt my credentials.

In another post, I remember you stating that my credential did not matter.

And now you are apparently calling both Dr. Scratch and me liars.

Which is it?

Until proven otherwise, I am one who takes people at their word (within reason). Therefore, the education, publications and industry work that you claim is true as far as I am concerned. The problem comes when you brag, and when you believe that your bragging gives you credibility, and when you claim "well, Scratch knows! I've shared secret information with only him." Why Scratch? We don't trust him.

But, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you're the most educated and accomplished person the human race has ever produced. The only thing I care about is the logical integrity, and the maturity of your arguments.

So far you aren't doing very well. You just love that "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and you use it often. You claim my faith is "demonstrably false," yet in 180 years no one has ever demonstrated it to be false -- and it isn't as if no one has tried; there have been thousands of anti-Mormons and anti-Mormon organizations with a sole purpose of destroying the LDS church. What's come of it? Exactly nothing.

Is it that if everything I said about my background proves to be absolutely verifiable, you will have even more cognitive dissonance with which to cope?

Could it be that you have problems with the truth?

I don't care who you are until you try to use your education or experience in things unrelated to Mormonism to make you somehow credible when it comes to Mormonism.

[_DrW]

Simon,

I could swear that you stated in an earlier post that you did not doubt my credentials.

In another post, I remember you stating that my credential did not matter.

And now you are apparently calling both Dr. Scratch and me liars.

Which is it?

Until proven otherwise, I am one who takes people at their word (within reason). Therefore, the education, publications and industry work that you claim is true as far as I am concerned. The problem comes when you brag, and when you believe that your bragging gives you credibility, and when you claim "well, Scratch knows! I've shared secret information with only him." Why Scratch? We don't trust him.

But, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you're the most educated and accomplished person the human race has ever produced. The only thing I care about is the logical integrity, and the maturity of your arguments.

So far you aren't doing very well. You just love that "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and you use it often. You claim my faith is "demonstrably false," yet in 180 years no one has ever demonstrated it to be false -- and it isn't as if no one has tried; there have been thousands of anti-Mormons and anti-Mormon organizations with a sole purpose of destroying the LDS church. What's come of it? Exactly nothing.

Is it that if everything I said about my background proves to be absolutely verifiable, you will have even more cognitive dissonance with which to cope?

Could it be that you have problems with the truth?

I don't care who you are until you try to use your education or experience in things unrelated to Mormonism to make you somehow credible when it comes to Mormonism.

Simon,

Thank you for the clarification. Your point about my credentials (or those of others) having little bearing on many of the topics discussed on this board is well taken. I agree with you.

I hope you will note, however that the subject of credentials first came up when DCP appealed to authority (not his authority, but that of Tarski; an individual who he knows I respect). Rather than let DCP get away with it, I elected to provide some of my own credentials, because I am not as well known on MADB and MDB as Tarski.

Likewise, the issue came up again when Yahoo Bot suggested that I get a GED.

I hope you notice, Simon, that I do not engage in ad hominem attacks here. For example, I do not call people "rabbits" or "boneheads". At worst, I suggest from time to time that certain individuals might read more.

However, when people do not bother to read my posts, and choose instead to use personal insults, especially insults related to education and experience (bonehead and naïve rabbit are two examples), I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to point out a few facts to them.

The issue or credibility is especially important for one who tends to argue from positions supported by facts and evidence against positions that tend to be supported mainly by superstition, myth, and conclusions that result from magical thinking and unfounded belief.

If you would like an example of what I am talking about here, simply have a look at the demonology thread. I trust that you understand my position on this.