Mike

OK, I think I understand what you say. I wouldn't have thought to count experiencing the misery and horrors of eternal damnation as being the same thing as understanding another person's view(s). But I see that I didn't make that clear. So, if that light is the one under which others' would interpret TFP's remark with which I disagreed, then I must change my answer to "yes, I agree that some views are not worth understanding."

Sure. But would that perception be valid? I believe that is the point. The argument JaG is making, as I see it, is that this perception, based on Warran Jeffs and his cronies, concerning the validity of polygamy is invalid. Understanding this doesn't argue FOR polygamy or the legalization of it either. But a person or group abusing something does not prove that thing, itself, evil. A person or group abusing something does not prove that thing, itself, evil. Your statement is true. But you can see that you've misquoted me by comparing your statement to what I actually said (above). Moreover, you jumped from my statement about such things remaining illegal to whether they are proved "evil". At the moment I stand by the statement I made concerning things that are already illegal, and yes I think the perception would be valid (speaking generally, as you allude to by saying this doesn't argue FOR polygamy or its legalization). Perhaps you can cause me to change my viewpoint by offering some examples of other things that are illegal *and* abused by persons or groups who do them anyway--things that you think ought to be perceived as not evil (again, your choice of words).

Treating me only despite my one request. You're using words that I didn't use, and drawing conclusions that I didn't give you reason to draw. But that's OK because like you say, you'll keep doing the same exact thing.

Thanks for the tips.

Hmmm, I disagree with you about the beauty. What I've observed of forum communication is a lot of ugliness. The beauty of communication is rare by comparison. Communication doesn't happen the way you're treating me at the moment in spite of my request to you.

@The Folk Prophet I want to communicate with you, but you're going to fast for me to do the effort justice. How about if we make this more like a dialogue, and less like whack-a-mole.

I don't believe what you believe in this regard. I disagree with you on #1. I agree on #2, but it's still worth my while to try.

Let's see if I understand you. Marriage is illegal. A group practices it, and abuses it. Yes, most reasonable people would agree that a group's practice of an illegal thing resulting in harm to people would serve as evidence that the illegal thing should remain illegal.

Help me understand what you mean by differentiating between valuable and de facto valuable. I could research it, but I prefer to know what *you* mean. Help me understand how you interpreted something I said to mean I perceived a relationship between hating polygamy and needing to be humble.

Yes, Jeffs' practice is perceived as a per se argument against polygamy as being of godly origin. This is because people believe that God does not institute situations in which innocent people are made subject to the whims of unrighteous dominion--and people perceive Jeffs' practice of polygamy as precisely that. We don't see Jeffs as an abuser of marriage because we typically think of marriage as *a* marriage, *one* marriage. I agree with your observation that we evaluate polygamy inductively. That's because inductive reasoning works--not always, but often enough that we rely upon it. Moreover, if I was in possession of first-hand factual evidence that polygamy made positive contributions to society in general and to individual women and children specifically, then I would perhaps write a book. I dare say that most people would offer similar testimonials, but most people are not in possession of first-hand positive experience with it, either.

No, those same people certainly don't look at him as a warning against marriage generally. But that's because he didn't marry in a general way, isn't it? And although reporting of events can impact the way you and I (and thousands) think, we are capable of parsing for accurate understanding. It isn't unreasonable for an objective observer to look at the results of Jeff's implementation of polygamy in the name of God and conclude that polygamy is generally not a Godly practice--or at least a Godly practice often practiced in an unGodly way.

I can think of a very straightforward reason that people would have issues with polygamy. One need only consider Warren Jeffs.

This is definitely evidence that we think differently from one another. But that can be a good thing. So, I'll try harder to communicate with you--it really would be a nice thing. Accept my good will: I don't think you are stupid. However, I do feel we are at something of an impasse and I can only speculate why that may be so. In my experience it could range on a spectrum from our different world views based upon our upbringing, our relationships, any many other variations in what we've observed during our lives. Let's start here and see how we do at communicating. No, the fact that not everyone sees things the same way does *not* render truth relative. Neither does it mean that some who don't understand are (necessarily) right. But just as it is valuable for you and I to understand one another, it's also valuable for us to understand why people who hate polygamy may feel the way they feel. Do you agree with me that it is valuable?

Your wife's attitude is probably a good example. It seems like a positive application of what I understood @Vort to have said earlier (albeit modified to fit other situations). That is if it (meaning just about anything) bother's one, quit thinking about it. On the other hand, if everybody quit thinking about things that bother them, there would be a lot fewer books to read.

My defensive stance? Then, I'm confused that you would say that. I would feel the need to take a defensive stance, if I thought you were attacking me personally. I don't think that. So I'm not taking a defensive stance.

It has everything to do with the point I made originally. If you can't or won't see that maybe it only means that you and I think differently, too.

Maybe the people you call believing Mormons are different than you, too.

And to me your conclusion is a non sequitur in that just because you believe God reveals His will to (Mormon) prophets doesn't mean that everyone else believes it. It doesn't mean the system breaks down, as you put it. It means that billions of people believe differently than you believe.

I don't believe it's necessarily a matter of pride because there are many humble people who cannot accept that the men you (and I) revere are more than mere men. My point is that for thousands of years there have been men who took advantage of women and called it God's will. I can easily believe that there are people who hate polygamy because they see it as just another example.

Perhaps not in the hearts and minds of the people I'm talking about which after all is the point.

As a male it may not be for me to say, but my own gut suggests to me that if God Himself told these women that polygamy was justified and righteous they would accept it. I believe that those who reject polygamy do so because in their hearts and minds they are rejecting men, not God.

Since the same is true of many people who do believe in God, I think it's more accurate to simply say that many people will believe in anything. -Me

I suppose there are a lot of ism-religions. And I've seen a lot of people who seem to worship things that make noise and smell bad.

I suppose Earth Day is beneficial in a similar way to Mothers Day, or any other "Day" that one might feel is important. So yes most things I do probably just make me feel better. But I still think it's important not to pee in the same stream that runs to where you want to recreate. The same is true of a few dozen other things that I "could" do to make the world a little bit worse--I still feel like not doing those things contributes to forestalling the tide. In any event I like clean water, clean air, and green places--so I think of myself as an environmentalist.

I'm interested to know what specific benefits you personally anticipate by studying abroad. What foreign language do you already know how to speak?