Elder Holland's talk at General Conference...

[_asbestosman]

Why are YOU arguing humanistic morals?

Why are YOU putting words in my mouth?

Hint: I was arguing the relevance of emotion.

[_asbestosman]

The part of Holland's talk we are focusing on takes the form of a logical argument: Joseph did X, therefore conclusion Y.

I don't disagree.

If he meant to make a purely emotional appeal, he could've just borne his testimony like everybody else, and we critics would have mostly ignored it.

I don't think it was a purely emotional appeal, but I do believe that emotion and spirit played vital roles.

[_Ray A]

As for me...I may have hit the road or finally confessed my fraud.

So Japanese Kamikaze pilots all died for a true cause, and the Emperor of Japan was God?

[_John Larsen]

If you want to come on the podcast, you can just ask. I getting tired of all of the flirting.

Consig was sort of apologetic in all the wrong way. I think that you are man enough to take crawling on your belly as you head out the door.

No crawling for me. You and I are the same thing--just less active members. Or are you a member. Maybe I'm one up on you.

[_harmony]

Now we already know that he knew that he was going to die.

No, we don't. You surmise one thing, someone else surmises another. We don't know anything.

[_asbestosman]

I recommend reading a standard college text on ethical theory. I used to recommend the Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, and that's still a good choice.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Not only is secular ethical theory more rich and well-thought out than you seem to imagine, but ethics based on the existence of God are widely regarded as untenable by the field for very good reasons.

Can you at least give me a hint about the answer? My suspicion is that ultimately it would have to be based on what we want or what our goals are. Without emotion or some kind of appeal, we'd be too apathetic to care about how to optimize the Prisoner's Dilemma. At the very least it seems to depend on the desireability of certain goals such as longevity, or minimizing suffering (where the value of suffering of a population could be determined primarily not by the average or total suffering, but perhaps by maximum suffering of any individual within the population).

There are good reasons for humans to cooperate so they can be better protected and acheive their goals. But where do those goals come from? Why are some things fine for animals but wrong for humans?

This is not an argument for God, but rather for the usefulness of emotion.

[_Gadianton]

Another thing: it is funny---and unfortunate---how thoroughly Mopologetic discussions on the Book of Mormon fall back again and again into argumentum ad ignorantium.

There is more that one pleiadian spiritualist out there laughing at the failure of scholars to explain how the pyramids were built. If we can't "explain them away", then it must have been aliens. I've seen a disciple of Billy Meier go so far as to say that even though some of Meiesrs UFO photos have been debunked, others haven't been explained adequately so therefore aliens are visiting.

[_Gazelam]

John,
From page 4

Facing the gallows, Lee wrote a book of confessions that detailed many dirty works by himself and the Brethren in the auspice of the Church. The exact details are irrelevant here, save to say that they reflect very poorly on the Church and the divine authority of the Church, especially of Brigham Young. It should be noted that like Holland, Lee remained fiercely loyal to Joseph Smith and to the Book of Mormon.

Actually his lawyer wrote that book in hopes of turning a profit from the publicity of the case. He was broke and needed the money.

[_harmony]

Actually his lawyer wrote that book in hopes of turning a profit from the publicity of the case. He was broke and needed the money.

Hmmmm... I wonder if he was a distant relation to Spalding or Rigdon?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Joseph Smith was a fraud.

There, I win!