Unitarian Minister requests: Stop bashing Mormons

[BenRaines]

Wow I feel like Spock in Star Trek. That isn't logical Jim.

Ben Raines

[Vort]

Wow I feel like Spock in Star Trek. That isn't logical Jim.

You look like him, too. Except for the broad shoulders. And the pink skin. And the blond hair. And the round ears. And the glasses. And the lack of uniform. But other than the things that don't look anything like Spock, you actually look a great deal like him.

[beefche]

It's interesting to me that our church actually teaches its members to not have contentious debates with people about our beliefs. If ever I have someone try to bash my beliefs, I simply walk away. I refuse to get into a debate or even defend my beliefs. I will simply state my beliefs, but at no point will I engage in a shouting match of who is right or wrong.

[superdad69]

The analogy was given from an LDS perspective; any non-LDS Christian would have rejected the analogy outright. But the analogy is just that. It is a parallel of the truth (from the LDS perspective), not the truth itself. When the analogy stops paralleling the truth, then it fails at that point.

It is not hard to stretch an analogy into absurdity. "Well, the original house of Christianity still has porch boards that survive from the original structure! Some of the mildew growing in the original house is descended from mildew growing shortly after it was first built! The original house has been retrofitted for Wi-Fi!" Do such things even have meaning? At this point, it's no longer analogy, just blather.

Logic has little to offer in such situations, as even atheists will quickly admit. Logic is simply a reasoning structure. If you use a syllogism within the bounds of its linguistic construction, it is useful only as long as your premises are valid.

If all A are B, and if all B are C, then all A are C.

This is a perfectly good logical syllogism. Is it true? Yes, it is true, so long as the premises "all A are B" and "all B are C" are true. For example:

All cats are mammals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all cats are animals.

But if either or both of the premises are false, the conclusion is false:

All Mormons are Christians. All Christians are saved by Jesus. Therefore, all Mormons are saved by Jesus.

You may debate which of the premises is flawed, but flawed premises lead to untenable conclusions -- EVEN WHEN THE LOGIC IS PERFECTLY SOUND.

Note that it's possible to have a flawed premise, yet still be correct:

Vort is my father. All fathers love their children. Therefore, Vort loves me.

The fact that there is a flawed premise in the above syllogism invalidates the logical necessity of the conclusion, but does not invalidate the conclusion itself. This is a point often missed by those discussing logic.

It's also perfectly possible to be illogical (not understanding the principles of logic), yet still be correct:

Vort posts on a discussion list. Sometimes, people who post on a discussion list are wrong. Therefore, Vort is sometimes wrong.

The fact that this is illogical does not mean that it is false, only that the logic fails.

So the logic fails in that particular instance. I can agree with you on that. I fail to see how this pertains to the subject at hand. Do you not see it as logical for standard Christians or NON-LDS-Christians to attack you if they feel attacked? Or do you not feel you are attacking them?

[beefche]

Again...This has to do with a different topic. You where talking to people of a different faith. If I told you I was starting a faith based on Jesus' teachings yet they where slightly off untill something interacted to change those teachings and you where a Christian it's only logical to me that you would be offended right?

No, it isn't logical. I've been told I'm wrong about many things, not just my religion. If it's someone I trust, I'll listen and if I am truly wrong, then I will change my thinking (a friend has yet to convince me Purdue is worth cheering for--I'll stick to my dyed red truth of Indiana Hoosiers!). I have had my own brother get in my face about my religion (he is not LDS), yet I chose to not be offended, but rather look at his actions from his motivation. I chose to simply state my beliefs and leave that conversation with a hug.

[superdad69]

It's interesting to me that our church actually teaches its members to not have contentious debates with people about our beliefs. If ever I have someone try to bash my beliefs, I simply walk away. I refuse to get into a debate or even defend my beliefs. I will simply state my beliefs, but at no point will I engage in a shouting match of who is right or wrong.

I'm not shouting at all. I'm just saying I understand how some NON-LDS Christians can take offense to some of the LDS Christians beliefs. I am not debating the validity of your religion either. I'm simply stating that if someone feels you offend them it's logical that they will attack back. That's all. How is that a contentious debate? Never once did I say you are wrong. In fact I'm playing devil's advocate and speaking from the viewpoint of a non LDS member. I would only debate your beliefs on a thread started on that topic.

[ttribe]

That is true. But like I said they feel like you attack them simply by existing.

How can this be logical? Offense at the very existence of another person and/or their belief system is not, in an of itself logical. It's the essence of bigotry. On the other hand I, as a Mormon, do not believe I have any "natural" enemies...the existence of a Baptist facility in my hometown does not offend or reduce me in any way. Succinctly, life is not a zero-sum-game and to behave as if it is simply creates neuroses and blind jealousy.

There is only so much even a loving person can take before they attack back.

Is this your opinion, or are you making a claim of fact based on empirical data?

I can sympathize. But also your interpretation of "Christ-like" may differ from there's as well. My opinion of being "Christ-like" I'm sure differs from both. But I'm arguing the logic of the attacks. NOT weather they are wrong or right.

I suppose you can argue in favor of the logic of the acts which follow (i.e. the attacks), but the fact that they are based on an irrational line of thinking (i.e. "their" very existence offends me) should give you pause...I'm assuming you are a rationalist given your professed atheism.

[Vort]

So the logic fails in that particular instance. I can agree with you on that. I fail to see how this pertains to the subject at hand. Do you not see it as logical for standard Christians or NON-LDS-Christians to attack you if they feel attacked?

Logic is a formal system of rational thought specifying how to obtain correct inferences. How do you think that deciding to attack someone about religion is a question of logic?

[ttribe]

So the logic fails in that particular instance. I can agree with you on that. I fail to see how this pertains to the subject at hand. Do you not see it as logical for standard Christians or NON-LDS-Christians to attack you if they feel attacked? Or do you not feel you are attacking them?

Bold emphasis mine, followed by a BINGO!

[superdad69]

No, it isn't logical. I've been told I'm wrong about many things, not just my religion. If it's someone I trust, I'll listen and if I am truly wrong, then I will change my thinking (a friend has yet to convince me Purdue is worth cheering for--I'll stick to my dyed red truth of Indiana Hoosiers!). I have had my own brother get in my face about my religion (he is not LDS), yet I chose to not be offended, but rather look at his actions from his motivation. I chose to simply state my beliefs and leave that conversation with a hug.

That is totally different again. You words where "yet I chose to not be offended" how can you make that choice for someone else? The choice of a non LDS member to get offended is not your choice to make

[superdad69]

Bold emphasis mine, followed by a BINGO!

I can sympathize with you there. But as I said, do you think that maybe you DO offend them weather knowingly or UNknowingly?

[superdad69]

Logic is a formal system of rational thought specifying how to obtain correct inferences. How do you think that deciding to attack someone about religion is a question of logic?

If you attack my brother. And I see you on the street. It is logical to think I may attack you. Not the correct answer. But it IS logical. If I throw a ball at someone. It hits someone else by mistake. The person it hits goes and tells their big brother I attacked him with the ball. His big brother sees me on the street. Fill in the blank......I'm not saying it's right. I have to deal with this all the time. I just locked someone up the other day for shooting someone who shorted his little cousin 10 dollars

[beefche]

I'm not shouting at all. I'm just saying I understand how some NON-LDS Christians can take offense to some of the LDS Christians beliefs. I am not debating the validity of your religion either. I'm simply stating that if someone feels you offend them it's logical that they will attack back. That's all. How is that a contentious debate? Never once did I say you are wrong. In fact I'm playing devil's advocate and speaking from the viewpoint of a non LDS member. I would only debate your beliefs on a thread started on that topic.

Take it down a notch, dad. I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was making an observation that other churches preach against us, but our church teaches us not to do that at all. You are stating that it's logical to attack when one feels attacked, yet I'm telling you our church teaches to not attack when attacked.

[superdad69]

How can this be logical? Offense at the very existence of another person and/or their belief system is not, in an of itself logical. It's the essence of bigotry. On the other hand I, as a Mormon, do not believe I have any "natural" enemies...the existence of a Baptist facility in my hometown does not offend or reduce me in any way. Succinctly, life is not a zero-sum-game and to behave as if it is simply creates neuroses and blind jealousy.

Is this your opinion, or are you making a claim of fact based on empirical data?

I suppose you can argue in favor of the logic of the acts which follow (i.e. the attacks), but the fact that they are based on an irrational line of thinking (i.e. "their" very existence offends me) should give you pause...I'm assuming you are a rationalist given your professed atheism.

AGAIN I am NOT agreeing with these attacks. I am just asking if you can understand why they feel like they need to attack? Of course the church in your hometown doesn't offend you. But if they opened it on your front lawn it would. That's how non LDS members may see your beliefs. I'm not asking you to agree with them. I'm just asking you to acknowledge the fact that they may be a little "booty hurt"

[superdad69]

Take it down a notch, dad. I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was making an observation that other churches preach against us, but our church teaches us not to do that at all. You are stating that it's logical to attack when one feels attacked, yet I'm telling you our church teaches to not attack when attacked.

Sorry! lol notch down engage since we are in star trek now...It's hard to do sometimes isn't it? Not to do anything at all i mean Why do you think that is? It goes against our nature. Because it is logical to attack when you feel attacked. I don't think anyone here has attacked a non LDS member. I don't think you ever would...an Atheist on the other hand? Maybe lol

[Misshalfway]

What has logic got to do with it anyway? People are mean to each other whether its religion or politics or family back yard bbq's! As if attacking someone out of fear was the rational response.

[beefche]

If you attack my brother. And I see you on the street. It is logical to think I may attack you. Not the correct answer. But it IS logical. If I throw a ball at someone. It hits someone else by mistake. The person it hits goes and tells their big brother I attacked him with the ball. His big brother sees me on the street. Fill in the blank......I'm not saying it's right. I have to deal with this all the time. I just locked someone up the other day for shooting someone who shorted his little cousin 10 dollars

Hey, are you from Indy? I heard about something like that here....

You are talking about physical attacks. Absolutely, we feel the need and have the right to protect ourselves from physical harm.

But, we are talking about philosophical beliefs or religious beliefs. If I teach that Jesus is God and you disagree, why should you attack me? We disagree. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. Big deal...I may try to convince you I am right, but why interpret that as an attack?

The topic in this thread is that other churches actively preach against Mormons (and other religions). Why? Why is that necessary? It is not logical that they feel attacked and so must go on the offensive. I don't believe that Jesus ever taught that.

[ttribe]

AGAIN I am NOT agreeing with these attacks. I am just asking if you can understand why they feel like they need to attack?

Not really...no.

Of course the church in your hometown doesn't offend you. But if they opened it on your front lawn it would.

Uhh...now we're getting into property rights? That seems far afield.

That's how non LDS members may see your beliefs. I'm not asking you to agree with them. I'm just asking you to acknowledge the fact that they may be a little "booty hurt"

Sorry...can't get my head around the irrational line of thinking that would cause someone to feel offended at my existence. Your existence (as an atheist) doesn't offend me...why should it?

[superdad69]

Hey, are you from Indy? I heard about something like that here....

You are talking about physical attacks. Absolutely, we feel the need and have the right to protect ourselves from physical harm.

But, we are talking about philosophical beliefs or religious beliefs. If I teach that Jesus is God and you disagree, why should you attack me? We disagree. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. Big deal...I may try to convince you I am right, but why interpret that as an attack?

The topic in this thread is that other churches actively preach against Mormons (and other religions). Why? Why is that necessary? It is not logical that they feel attacked and so must go on the offensive. I don't believe that Jesus ever taught that.

I work in Memphis. People kill other people here for dumb things all the time.

You are right. Jesus did not teach that. But we will never add up to his perfection or so it says in the Bible. That was his reason for coming here in the first place. To forgive us before we even did anything. So again I'm NOT saying it's right. But some Christians especially here in the "Bible Belt" would kill over their religion at the drop of a hat. Believe me I've had my life threatened before. And now they are in jail. But that is not the point. The point is they WILL fight you Physically or Verbally if they feel they are attacked. Some may believe that your belief's very existence is an attack on their entire religion. Again. I'm not saying they are right. But I could see how IF and I stress IF they felt that way the obvious recourse in their mind would be to attack as well.

[Vort]

If you attack my brother. And I see you on the street. It is logical to think I may attack you. Not the correct answer. But it IS logical. If I throw a ball at someone. It hits someone else by mistake. The person it hits goes and tells their big brother I attacked him with the ball. His big brother sees me on the street. Fill in the blank......I'm not saying it's right. I have to deal with this all the time. I just locked someone up the other day for shooting someone who shorted his little cousin 10 dollars

It's not a question of logic. Logic is used to draw correct inferences based on already-determined propositions. Human actions and reactions may perhaps be logically predicted, but that is different from saying such actions are logical.

For example: Was it logical that I responded to your initial post as I did?

Well, it was certainly logically predictable. Several things can be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty:

• In his original post, superdad69 claimed he did not wish to offend those here and guaranteed that on his web site, Christians (including Mormons) would not be disparaged.
• superdad69's web site contained material blatantly and obviously offensive to any believing Christian, including Latter-day Saints.
• Vort perceives someone to be a liar when he notices a marked discrepancy between that person's stated objectives, beliefs, or intents, and that person's actual actions.
• Vort tends to be very blunt and even insulting to those he considers liars, either face-to-face or online.

Given the above set of conditions, could you have logically inferred that Vort might fly off the handle at superdad69's original post? Sure, you might have, had you known the above set of conditions.

Now: Was it logical for Vort to fly off the handle at superdad69? That is an entirely separate question, far more difficult to determine. But ultimately, the answer is almost certainly, No, it was not logical.

Do you see the difference?

You ask if it is "logical" that other Christians get offended at our doctrine. No, there is nothing logical about it. That does not mean that one couldn't logically infer that, given the conditions that actually exist, many Christians might indeed get offended at the very existence of Mormonism and its beliefs. But saying that you might logically infer that they would get bent out of shape is much different from saying that it's logical for them to get bent out of shape.

[BenRaines]

Hey folks. If I recall my OP, yes mine, was about a non LDS minister writing an article about not going after LDS for no longer practiced beliefs.

What was supposed to be a nice article has turned in to something else.

Lets get back on track or as OP I will request that this thread be closed.

Ben Raines

[superdad69]

Not really...no.

Uhh...now we're getting into property rights? That seems far afield.

Sorry...can't get my head around the irrational line of thinking that would cause someone to feel offended at my existence. Your existence (as an atheist) doesn't offend me...why should it?

Ok....your church in the eyes of a non LDS member could be perceived as being built on the "front lawn" of theirs. I'm sure they might have a reason to be offended by that.

I'm not speaking of you as a person. I'm talking about you as a MORMON. The very existence of such a religion MAY offend them.

The fact that YOU personally are not offended by my presence here, is very sweet, but irrelevant. I'm asking could you see how someone ELSE could be offended if you are going against their principal beliefs in their mind and calling it the same as their's?

[superdad69]

wow....

[ttribe]

Ok....your church in the eyes of a non LDS member could be perceived as being built on the "front lawn" of theirs. I'm sure they might have a reason to be offended by that.

I'm not speaking of you as a person. I'm talking about you as a MORMON. The very existence of such a religion MAY offend them.

The fact that YOU personally are not offended by my presence here, is very sweet, but irrelevant. I'm asking could you see how someone ELSE could be offended if you are going against their principal beliefs in their mind and calling it the same as their's?

Meh...I think Vort's response is adequate.

[BenRaines]

LDS church attacks no one. They actually go to the extreme to not attack. LDS missionaries are told to not contend with anyone in the mission field. We offer to tell our story. If someone wants to listen then fine. If not we wish them well in their religion or religious pursuit or wish them well. Nothing more. If there is someone sincere in hearing the message then it is shared.

Ben Raines