Scamming the Young Women

[_Jason Bourne]

Maybe some of you people that went through the public education program can chime in and agree or disagree with my wife and I.
We were having a conversation at lunch today about our graduation. Even in our publicly educated days we used to joke about what a horrible day graduation was. We had to be at the gymnasium/auditorium at 6AM. Neither of us are morning people and it made for a groggy morning that got worse as the morning went on.

Anyway we started talking about how that graduation ceremony is built up to the students from the time they are 5. They are indoctrinated to believe that their graduation will allow them to have a bright future, and a better job. To us this is a complete scam.

Most of these students have been to graduations and seen how beautiful they are and what a special day it is for the student, their families and friends. They are then told how much more wonderful their graduation will be inside the (name of particular school where that particular student attends). We estimated that 90% of students graduating high school for the first time have never seen a graduation before, they really have no idea what they are in for and take their teacher's words as gospel that it is far and away more special than a a graduation at another school.

Then they arrive at the auditorium at 6AM, too tired to comprehend what is going on. They are dressed in strange clothes (cap and gown) and escorted into room. The ceremony itself is devoid of any expression of love or affection for your spouse, instead you are given some instruction by some old keynote speaker dressed in black that neither of you know and then you answer yes to something read directly from the school code of honor, or songbook.

This is a classic bait and switch. For now these students are cap and gown wearing members of the graduated students club. The day most of them have been dreaming of becomes, like my wife, just a blur of confusion and let downs that you cannot discuss with anyone.

I'd stay away from analogies if I were you.

I certainly must agree.

In fact Simon may want to bad defending the LDS Church. He is only furthering the critics cause by his posts. They mostly consist of bad analogies, repeated often nonsensical CFRs, inane one liners (even worse than BC) and repeatedly saying "The Church is True."

I am not sure that is good apologetics.

[_Jason Bourne]

It is interesting how you were lied to, and only a select few others, while I and many others do not feel we were lied to.

So what you are essentially saying is that you are better than me and my circle of colleagues and friends, and that you are smarter than me and my circle of colleagues and friends. If you really are that arrogant, then it is no wonder you can no longer enjoy the light of Christ.

Simon

Your hostile approach certainly is not successful in defending the faith.

Look everyone has different experiences. Yours does not invalidate theirs nor do theirs invalidate yours.

However, there is no doubt that the Church has been and still is selective in what and how they present the history surrounding the events of the restoration. I understand why they do this. I have wondered how they could give a more C type history that Dan Peterson talks about and be successful. It may cause fewer to stay and fewer to join. But they would be stronger and less would be disillusioned when they find out more details that the Church did not disclose. It is a dilemma.

It really is not surprising when someone who was brought up in the Church starts discovering things that the Church is not as open about that some get angry. Others don't. Everyone is different. It is not surprising when some who join as converts later discover some things that some may be angry and jettison their beliefs. Others may not.

You seem to think that all these people should have done a major due diligence on their own and so the fault lays at their own feet. And perhaps there is an element of truth in that approach. On the other hand young people are typically indoctrinated through primary, SS, seminary, YM and YW and they are NOT encouraged to seek out non approved resources for their study. Rather they are told the prophets won't lead them astray over and over and then repeatedly taught to gain a testimony that is really based on a subjective experience. How many teens are really going to go to FARMS resources, or heavy tomes like Bushman's books or Quinn or BYU studies and so on? How many investigators will do this? Not many. Do the missionaries encourage them to do so? Nope. However many will now go to the internet and that is not typically helpful.

And when I was young the resources were much harder to get at then they are today so may generation may have a right to be upset about this.

Further you condemn those who lose their faith when they start studying for ending up with what you view as an undesirable result from doing what you say they should have done earlier on their own. How ironic. When the person finally has the time and resources and where with all to pursue more about their faith and it leads them to a decision that maybe they would have made had they done so earlier, or perhaps if the Church would have provided more full disclosure you mock them with scorn.

Why do you and others of your ilk do so?

[_Pa Pa]

I also have no idea who "Nightlion" is.

He is the prophet, seer, and revelator of the Apocalrock.

The what?

[_Jason Bourne]

Great point if you are not playing with a full deck.

You see, "paying 10%" is what we scholars call voluntary.

To you, that means you don't have to do it.

You are a scholar? Really Simon, then start acting like one.

As for tithing being voluntary... well sort of. It is unless you want the best blessings in the Church has to offer. And also, commitment to tithe is part of the baptismal interview. If an baptismal candidate says no they will not tithe can they still be baptized?

[_Jason Bourne]

So, you got knocked up, and now you're mad at the Church. Pathetic.

NEXT!

See what I mean!

[_Willy Law]

I have seen Simon make a few well thought out and intellectually honest posts, I just seem to bring the worst out in him.

[_Pa Pa]

Great point if you are not playing with a full deck.

You see, "paying 10%" is what we scholars call voluntary.

To you, that means you don't have to do it.

You are a scholar? Really Simon, then start acting like one.

As for tithing being voluntary... well sort of. It is unless you want the best blessings in the Church has to offer. And also, commitment to tithe is part of the baptismal interview. If an baptismal candidate says no they will not tithe can they still be baptized?

So what is the answer...no standards of any kind?

[_Tchild]

Great point if you are not playing with a full deck.

You see, "paying 10%" is what we scholars call voluntary.

To you, that means you don't have to do it.

You are a scholar? Really Simon, then start acting like one.

As for tithing being voluntary... well sort of. It is unless you want the best blessings in the Church has to offer. And also, commitment to tithe is part of the baptismal interview. If an baptismal candidate says no they will not tithe can they still be baptized?

Paging "post and run" Simon. Simon? Simon? -- crickets chirping--

I guess he is gone.

So, how does one become a member of the LDS church unless they "commit" to something that is only voluntary (tithing)?

[_Jason Bourne]

Great point if you are not playing with a full deck.

You see, "paying 10%" is what we scholars call voluntary.

To you, that means you don't have to do it.

You are a scholar? Really Simon, then start acting like one.

As for tithing being voluntary... well sort of. It is unless you want the best blessings in the Church has to offer. And also, commitment to tithe is part of the baptismal interview. If an baptismal candidate says no they will not tithe can they still be baptized?

So what is the answer...no standards of any kind?

Gee did I say that? I just pointed out it may not be totally "voluntary." It is required to enter the temple and to enter the waters of baptism. Course someone can forgo that as well. So maybe it is somewhere in between.

[_Blixa]

No source would do since they are LDS...be for real. Why even ask?

You've got to be kidding me. Did you not see that you wrote trader for traitor? Did you seriously think I was riled up over you characterizing him as some kind of businessman?

As for murderer, read a book. No competent historian would attempt that smear, LDS or not.