Steve Benson argues that miracles are impossible and that Sandra Tanner is inconsistent to apply cool reasoning and logic to reject Mormonism and yet embrace Christianity.

Many atheists reject the concept of miracles because miracles violate the laws of nature. The strongest argument against miracles was advanced by David Hume. He argued that since a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature which we know through experience, no rational person can believe in miracles.

D’Souza took on this argument in a recent book. D'Souza suggests that through Hume’s own reasoning, this argument does not hold up, since Hume himself argued that scientific laws are empirically unverifiable.

For example, the speed of light can be measured a million times at a certain value, but we cannot know with absolute certainty that it will not change in the next measurement, or that the speed of light was not different at some point in the past. We also don't know whether somewhere else in the universe light travels at a different speed.

Hume also argued that there is no logical connection between cause and effect. We can see event B following event A millions of times, but we can never be absolutely sure that event A was the cause of event.

D’Souza argues that this leaves room for miracles; exceptions where the natural laws of science (which we cannot know for sure anyway) do not hold up as we normally expect them to. C.S. Lewis and call miracles additions to natural laws. Jesus’ walk on water can be accepted in the same way: as God Incarnate, He provided some extra forces to keep himself afloat.

In short, one may accept the possibility of miracles as a whole but at the same time keep a logical and skeptical mind.

Some theists, like myself, constantly question. In fact, studying/debating TBMs has in itself taught me a great deal about human reasoning, the capacity for self-deception and the constant need to challenge assumptions and arguments.

I have to believe Sandra Tanner didn't reject Mormonism for its miracle claims. If you permit the existence of a god, as many smart people do, then you can rationally allow for the miraculous. This rational allowance can be strengthened if you have experienced something in your life which you believe to be miraculous.

So, for me, an attack on Christianity's miracle claims is a weak attack. The better attack, if you wish to make it, is to take on questions such as whether there is any archaeological evidence of the Biblical exodus. The limitation on this type of attack is that the Bible has proven to be factually accurate in many, many ways....down to, for example, the identities of Babylonian functionaries which can be verified in other historical records.

So, Sandra Tanner was not being inconsistent. The rational tools one uses to reject Mormonism do not lead inexorably to rejection of all religion.

D'Souza is a faux right-wing-think-tank intellectual. And that is not an ad hominem.

Your last statement is special pleading, a logical fallacy. Sorry, but what's silly in Mormonism is often silly in "Christianity"--whatever that is.

I would answer you from Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia:

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

RAG, and I would suggest that you used a very Mopologetic tactic by belittling D'Souza rather than taking on his argument.

Perhaps you can apply reasoning to this event that happened in my own life. I am hesitant to toss something this personal onto the forum, but here I go anyway.

Several years ago, my mom was in the hospital. I was at home with my wife when all of a sudden I had this overwhelming feeling that my brother needed to go to the hospital. It was sudden and intense. I literally stood up in my living room and said to my wife that Ted (not his real name) needed to go to the hospital. My wife was like, huh? I almost shouted at her, Ted needs to go to the hospital! My cool wife looked at me and said, well, call him, honey. So, I did.

His wife answered. She said he wasn't there. Before I could say anything, she told me, "it was weird. He just grabbed his case all of a sudden and left. When I asked what he was doing, he said he was going to the hospital."

When Ted arrived, our mom had been moved to the last room down the hall from the nurses station. She was unmonitored. As soon as he walked into the room, she went into a full body, grand mal seizure. He immediately sounded the alarm.

The docs layers said that if Ted hadn't been there, the seizure could have killed her or left her with significant brain damage. It is also very likely no one would have noticed right away given her location and the time of the night.

When I asked Ted later why he went to the hospital, he replied, "God told me to go." This was before I said anything to him abut my little shouting event in my living room.

You may think it coincidence that I had this weird feeling in my living room. You may think it coincidence that my brother simultaneously believed he was being told to go to the hospital. You may think it coincidence that my mom had been moved to a new room and that she had the seizure. You may think that some sort of family telepathy allowed my brother and i to predict a future seizure. And that's fine, but I choose to believe it was more than coincidence. I don't think that's irrational or illogical. It is my response to a direct experience.

This experience is not why I am a theist, but it does support my view that miracles should not be excluded from the realm of possibility.

But as you point out, there are other possible explanations. For instance, it is known that certain dogs can alert up to twelve hours before their owners have a seizure. The mechanism by which the dog comes by this information is presently unknown. At some point we may know how it happens. It is not a huge leap to think that some humans may have a similar mechanism.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0416_030416_seizuredogs.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 11:02AM by summer.

It's about your feelings. Your feelings may have nothing to do with reality. I have seen such coincidences before. They don't explain all the times that tragedy and death impend and people DON'T sense it. There are way too many problems with this kind of "logic". Just try to test it; you can't. If it gives you comfort, fine, but don't expect others to accept it as a "miracle".

D'Souza has been caught in lies and ignorance before. Why do you reach for his "explanations"? Is it to rationalize feelings that you had? If that's the case, it's not about logic and any old explanation will do.

YOU are the one applying "Mopologetic" standards in your statements. Your private experiences and your feelings about them may have validity in your own mind, but when you try to apply them outside that rather subjective realm, they fail. You might as well be bearing your testimony. Maybe you are.

Your viewpoint is valid.

Nonetheless, there is a difference between assessing the "supernatural" and assessing basic fat claims. The former necessarily involves some level of philosophy in the analysis, and the latter does not.

We can easily test whether the Abraham papyri are part of the Book of Breathings or contain a lost story of Abraham, in his own hand. Testing miracle claims is different. I am not trying to convince you that miracles happen. I am just suggesting that Benson's critique of Sandra Tanner is apples and oranges. Benson may be right that miracles never happen, but that doesn't mean Sandra Tanner is being inconsistent. She and Benson just disagree on a major philosophical point.

I'm pretty sure Steve asked Sandra for evidence to back up the miracle claims. Did he actually assert to Sandra that miracles are impossible?

. . . she does to Mormonism.

Her response was to avoid the question completely and, instead, to bear her personal testimony to me:

"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you."

(**See the recap of my encounter with her below)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 12:23PM by steve benson.

In fact, why would you even connect it?

It's a huge leap from a particular ambiguous event to confirmation to a whole body of doctrines and dogma--which almost every religion requires.

"Miracles" in other cultures "prove" the tenets of the dominant superstition/religion. So, there are "proofs" of reincarnation in India, of the incarnation of the Buddha in Tibet, of the coming of the Messiah among the Chabad Lubavich, of the prophetic status of James Strang, Ellen White, Emanuel Swedenborg, of the "miracles" of Fatima, Lourdes, etc., etc. Your individual experience was interpreted by you as a "miracle". Why? Because you couldn't explain it.

Sounds like the "god of the gaps" to me.

Timothy Leary, Terrence McKenna and John C. Lilly all had experiences under LSD (and other substances) of other realities. Can we prove that they were just hallucinations? Or do we have to open the door to "miraculous" transdimensional travel to commune with weird elf-like creatures?

If you wish to believe without evidence, as a fideist, there is honesty in that. Connecting anomalous events to scriptures and gods, however, is a torturing of logic that only a D'Souzah or equally dishonest writer would make. I would put down the D'Souzah and pick up the Martin Gardner.

The woman has done as much for exmoism as anyone on earth.

I don't tend to lash out at those who've had the courage to do what she has. Those who leave the morg go in many directions and she's done well for herself, fending off mormon attacts, raising a family, networking and enriching the lives of thousands, being widowed after a long and happy marriage.

Some people believe in miracles. That's how their brains work. So be it.

I don't agree with her about some things but I have to admire her.

It is possible for the Tanners to both provide good information about kolobianism and have irrational beliefs themselves.

It's not uncommon for ex-mormons to not be able to let go of the scapegoating aspect of their previous faith.

Some people, like the Tanners, simply refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. They want somebody to blame (Adam & Eve) and somebody to save them (Jay-Zeus).

Somebody to blame (Book of Mormon) and somebody to save them (Bible).

Their intent is theirs as far as I'm concerned.

Some Mormons believe in miracles, by the way. Indeed, their whole religion is based on accepting the alleged veracity of Mormon miracles.

That's how their brains work. Gonna give them a pass, too?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 12:27PM by steve benson.

how so ?

But let's look at what FT said:

"For example, the speed of light can be measured a million times at a certain value, but we cannot know with absolute certainty that it will not change in the next measurement, or that the speed of light was not different at some point in the past. We also don't know whether somewhere else in the universe light travels at a different speed."

Neither FT nor D'Souza have apparently studied modern astronomy and physics. Observations made since the time of Edwin Hubble have consistently demonstrated the Doppler Shift as applicable throughout the observable universe. Could these laws suddenly change?

FT says why not?

I say why?

The idea that physical laws *can* suddenly change is a proposition that can be tested. The burden of proof is on FT and D'Souza.

If physical laws can suddenly and inexplicable change, it's entirely possible that at 10:00 I will be transformed into Jesus Christ, except wearing a green wig.

Prove that I can't! After all, a miracle could happen.

Is this absurd? Of course it is. And so is D'Souza's pathetic take on Hume. D'Souza expects us to "disprove" miracles, but the burden of proof is on him. Otherwise, everything is true and nothing makes any sense...a retreat to superstition.

That's interesting, isn't it?

"...I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor."

- Tim Minchin (Storm)

All Hume was saying is that nothing can be proven to be absolute. Butl, scientific laws can be shown to be very very astronomically reliable.

As I said on Steve Benson's original thread, the problem with miracles is not that they do not happen (I admitted there that they DO happen, even to atheists), but that they do not prove any religious claim, since they happen to people of all beliefs.

The Mormons do it with King Elohim.

The Christians do it with King James.

Like I told you earlier, I wasn't asking her about the "miracles" in Sandra's life; I was about the "miracles" in the Bible.

After all, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are based on the same premise: God intervenes miraculously in people's lives.

Sandra obviously doesn't think that is true about Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. Why does she think it's true about Christianity and the Bible?

And, if you claim, Sandra didn't reject the Book of Mormon for its miracle claims, then why didn't she then accept the Book of Mormon for its miracle claims? By her own admission, she's into accepting miracles (apparently, however, just the Christian ones).

She can quote chapter and verse out of Joe's concoctions on why Book of Mormon fairy tale lore is illogical and non-supportable by evidentiary standards. Why can't she do the same with the the primitive sheepherder-invented stories in the the Bible?

Your weak fallback is to dodge that inconvenient inconsistency on Sandra's part and try instead for moving off-topic to whether there the Bible can serve as a Rand McNally roadmap of sorts to ancient peoples and places. It can be used as such, but that wasn't the question. It appears it would take a miracle to keep you on point.

You can attempt to humor your critics with your appeal to Hume until the Book of Mormon's horse-pulled chariots and the Bible's devil-infested pigs come home, but Sandra Tanner is inconsistent in both her belief and practice:

--The Day Ex-Mormon Sandra Tanner Bore Her Testimony to Me . . .

That moment came when she got cross with me as we crossed swords over Christianity and its purported miracles.

A current RfM thread asking believing posters to explain how they know of God's alleged existence brought my encounter with Sandra to mind.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,365962
_____


First, let me say, though, that I owe much to Sandra and Jerald Tanner for helping grease the skids in the direction of my eventual escape from the Mormon Cult.

Their invaluable assistance in that effort through rigorous, responsible and readily-available research was critical to my freedom break.

Two of their works, in particular, were instrumental in helping me to crystallize in my own mind the utter falsity of the LDS faith.

The first was their review of changes in the LDS Temple Endowment over time, leading me to the unavoidable conclusion that it was nothing but a clunky, unimaginative and blatantly dependent rip-off from Masonic lodge rites.

That Tanner-fueled conclusion ultimately led me to suspend my payment of tithing.

The second significant impact that the Tanners' work had on my decision to leave Mormonism was their book, "The Changing World of Mormonism," a devastating compilation of historical evidences against Mormonism's defenses of its history, doctrines, policies and practices.

Over the years, I have made many Mecca-like treks to the Tanners' bookstore in Salt Lake City, across from the Franklin Covey ballfield on 13th South. There I have spent numerous hours, separated myself from hundreds of my own dollars purchasing vital reading material and spoken, both in person and later over the phone, with, in particular, Sandra.

In so many ways, she and Jerald have my deep respect and appreciation for all the years they have devoted to shedding uncompromising light on the Mormon facade.

With that said as genuinely as possible, I nonetheless have a real bone to pick with Sandra Tanner.

In a nutshell, she is not, in my opinion, equally as critically-minded or honest in her research of Christianity as she is of Mormonism.
_____


--Preparing to Duel with Sandra Tanner Over Her Research Methodology and Mindset: A Close Encounter of the Christian Apologist Kind

Several years ago, I made one of my stops at the Tanner bookstore. With me at the time was my friend Maxinne Hanks--excommunicated Mormon, outspoken feminist, professional editor, and noted author of the book, "Women and Authority."

After browsing through the Tanners' bookstore and making some selections, I noticed that Sandra had taken up her usual spot behind a desk next to the front door, where she would both ring out customers and engage in informal and informative discussions with her inquiring patrons.

I could not help but notice that many of the books in the Tanner establishment promote and defend both the faith and historicity of fundamentalist Christianity.

The Tanners are, indeed, avowed Christians who operate their own outreach ministry and who are uncompromising apologists for their own Christian belief system.

I did not want to unnecessarily offend Sandra but had some basic questions I wished to ask her regarding her research and defense of Christianity.

I knew, however, that it would be wise to approach these subjects somewhat delicately.

So, as I approached her as she sat at her desk, I did so with cautious deliberation, asking the Lord's blessings to be with me (OK, maybe not that last part but I was a bit apprehensive).
_____


--Confrontation With Sandra Tanner Over Her Double Standard

As I had done many times in the past, I sincerely relayed to Sandra how much I appreciated her rigorous research on, and deconstruction of, Mormon doctrine and history.

In particular, I mentioned her unparalleled contributions to exposing the Book of Mormon as a demonstrable fraud and 19-century artifact.

I told her how much I respected her work in conclusively demonstrating that the Book of Mormon was pure fiction, both in its character development and its tale spinning--and that these conclusions could be amply, empirically demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to honest minds.

Sandra graciously took my compliments as I intended them. She knows she's a stellar researcher in the field of Mormon studies and that realization shows both in her carriage and her confidence.

Then I moved into what I discovered, soon enough, was a hostile minefield.

I politely asked Sandra why she did not apply the same rigorous research approach, combined with a healthy dose of skepticism, to questions regarding the historicity and credibility of the Bible--at least as uncompromisingly as she did to the Book of Mormon.

As is Sandra's tendency when she senses she's facing a potential fight on her hands, she bristled and became defensive.

She told me that unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible was a legitimate, historical record of actual, identifiable peoples who lived in documentable places and times--and, further, that these facts were absolutely confirmed through archaelogical research which employed the Bible as a reliable reference and field guide.

For instance, there were, she pointed out, real Israelites who lived in a real city of Jerusalem. The Bible, she reminded me, served as a valuable scientific roadmap for finding and identifying these populations and locales.

No dispute there.

However, I mentioned to Sandra that the Bible's "miracle stories"--such as Noah's Flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, Balaam's ass speaking in human tongue, Jesus walking on water and resurrecting himself and others from the dead--could not be empirically proven through any kind of scientific appeal to the Bible.

That book of Christian scripture, I told her, offers no compelling, testable evidence on which to conclude that these "miracle stories" were actual, literal events.

At this point, Sandra was becoming increasingly upset. She scowled and the corners of her mouth tightened. I figured she would hit back in short order, at least figuratively. And, indeed, she did.

But not before I proceeded apace, determined to get an answer, if I could, from her about what I saw as the clear double standard in her research approaches to Mormonism vs. Christianity.

I asked Sandra why she was so obviously willing to accept Biblical miracles as factual events but was not willing to similarly accept the miraculous tales found in the Book of Mormon.
_____


--Testimony-Bearing Time

Sandra looked back at me, her eyes flashing angrily. She said, and I quote:

"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you."

End of discussion.

I thought I had just finished listening to a holier-than-thou Mormon bearing witness to the truthfulness of the Latter-day Saint Gospel during a fast and testimony meeting.

I went ahead and purchased my items and bid Sandra a civil good day.

She graciously bid me the same.

But we had definitely crossed swords--and maybe even drew a little blood.

Sandra Tanner, the invincible and impeccable crusader against all things illogical and baseless in Mormonism, had shown me a stubborn determination (born of an absolute faith-based conviction that she is unquestionably right) for believing in Christianity.

The same kind of faith-based conviction that she criticizes Latter-day Saints for invoking in behalf of their unwavering belief in Mormonism.
_____


--Conclusion: Sandra Tanner and the Mormons

In so many ways, Sandra Tanner and the Mormons are fundamentally different and at insurmountable odds with one another.

But in one important respect, Sandra Tanner and the Mormons are solidly joined at the hip.

They both faithfully accept their respective religions on the basis of "miracles" which defy--indeed, do not (at least in their minds) require--rational explanation or empirical proof.

The kind of rational explanation or empirical proof that Sandra Tanner claims are reasons enough to reject Mormonism--but not enough to reject Christianity.

"I've had miracles in my life. I feel sorry for you."

OK, Sandra, whatever you say.

Mormons say the exact same thing about us, too, ya know.
_____


(for the original thread and its attendant responses, see: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,366174,366174#msg-366174)



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 12:52PM by steve benson.

That's why she's seen miracles and you haven't.

And why you should be pitied.

For god so loved the world - or at least some people more than others.

Since the existence of God or lack thereof can't be proven either way, why on earth or elsewhere does it matter what Sandra Tanner replaced Mormonism with?

She didn't go to anyone else's home or place of business & create a confrontation over religion, she doesn't (to the best of my knowledge & experience in dealing with her) push her religious beliefs off on anybody else, and as long as she doesn't push 'em on me, the fact that she found something that replaces Mormonism & others have not is is entirely inconsequential.

When I'm in her house, I don't pick fights.

Well over 25 years ago some marauding Baptists passing through the neighborhood left a paperback book on my doorstep.
Skimming it out of curiosity gave me the first mention of the Tanners, which led to several visits & several purchases at their place.
I add to the library of what I call Seditious Literature periodically.

I have been treated nicely every time, the books bought there have been immensely helpful in laying a vast array of materials at my fingertips that I otherwise would never have tracked down individually on my own, and of that "service" I am very appreciative.

If Sandra Tanner is too mentally deficient to comprehend that atheism is the only logical alternative to Mormonism, and wishes to believe in "miracles", it's a matter of total indifference to me.
She has helped many and her current beliefs injure no one.

Seriously, leave Brittany alone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 12:29PM by kolobian.

When I politely asked her why she doesn't apply the same logic and approach to miracle-based Christianity tales via the rigorous application of empirical evidence (a tactic which she herself uses so well against Mormonism's miracle stories), she suddenly turned un-nice.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. After all, she opens herself up for such questions by the very fact that she has Christian promotional literature on sale in her store.

If Sandra can't handle such basic questions without getting testimonially testy, then perhaps she ought to take down her "Open for Business" sign.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 12:43PM by steve benson.

Of course, D'Sousa's logic can be used to show that Mormon claims, including the Book of Abraham, are possible. As Nibley has shown there are astronomically implausible explanations which nevertheless can't be absolutely eliminated because the laws of science can't be absolutely proven.

Mormon claims are more astronomically implausible, but Christian claims are still astronomically implausible.

I personally find it more astronomically plausible that aliens living in another star system are seeding planets throughout the cosmos than that a transcendental glow-in-the-dark primate who knows his own future created beings he knew in advance would disobey laws he knew in advance wouldn't be obeyed and decided to clone himself, torture and sacrifice himself, to appease himself, so that he could feel good about letting the few primates on this one little planet in this one little solar system who chose to pretend he existed come worship him for the rest of eternity with no other purpose, forever and ever and ever...

But obviously Sandra doesn't see it that way..

Her store, her merchandise, her choice.
She didn't force you to buy any Christian literature, she didn't force you to walk in the door, she didn't bring up the subject of her beliefs, you did.

She has zero obligation to apply emperical anything to to anything to satisfy you, me, or anybody else.

She also has zero obligation to discuss or defend her beliefs.

She & Gerald opened up their "ministry" a long time ago to help people see the truth about the Corporation, not to meet your personal need to validate your feelings about Christianity in general.

And if she's not going to play by the same rules in examining Christianity as she does when examining Mormonism, then I can challenge that, as well.

And if she doesn't want to be consistent or rational in her defense of Christianity, then, of course, she can bear me her Mormon-like testimony in defense of Christianity.

There you go proselytizing me again.

But since you're back, just who are "the rest of us" that you spoke for earlier?:

In the previous thread and in answer to my request that you stop prosletyizing me with your viewpoint, you wrote:

"Steve,

"Will do, but I doubt you'll stop proselytizing the rest of us with your views of religionists who don't measure up. :)

"You've provided a fair amount of insider info about the Corporation, which has been useful & informative, even recycled endlessly, and you deserve full credit for that.

"For incessantly pushing the atheist agenda, not so much.

"And this should in no way be construed as an attack on atheists.

"Done."


To which I replied:

"In the name of your endlessly recycled Jesus Christ. Amen (with one P.S.) . . .

"Just who is 'the rest of us'?

"Did your Jesus appoint you spokesperson for them, whoever they may be?

"Amen and amen."
_____


Since you're obviously not done, how about an answer?

(By the way, you keep missattributing to Sandra's deceased husband. His name is Jerald, not Gerald).



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 01:27PM by steve benson.

The purpose of this site is to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity.

so is this a Christian book store?

if so...i think it is a very ballsy move to go into a Christian book store and "argue" a point... unless that is a regular occurrence there ...or did you really think she would become an atheist right then and there?

you give her credit where it is due... and you say they helped you out a lot. is this any way to repay them? really? in another setting i would say go for it...but in her own store? hmmmm...and yet you went into her store and challenged her and even a polite challenging question will not be received well i should think...is she really "openly" defending Christianity? and if so do you also go into other Christian book stores and challenge them?
do you wear a name tag and ride a bike there? :)
just sayin!

Steve,
I have nowhere here "gone after atheists".
Whether or not you or anybody else chooses to be an atheist, or a Christian, or a Wiccan, or a moonbeam worshipper, or anything else, is a matter of supreme indifference to me, as long as either choice is not stuffed repeatedly down my throat.

I ignore most of your posts, I know by now what the recurring themes will be. You are equally at liberty to ignore anything I post.

The only reason I got into this one was because of your mention of Sandra Tanner.

Nowhere in anything I've said is there any intentional criticism of atheists, merely my commentary on your commentary regarding what you seem to feel is either an intellectual or a moral failing on her part.

I'm sure she has better things to do with her life than use you as a forum example of anything anywhere, and if she chooses to feel sorry for you, again it's her choice.
Ditto on her belief in miracles.

You can run as far as you want in rebuttal, but my core sentiments independent of any side issue you may want to try to attach, are that I see no obligation on her part to come to the same conclusion you did on leaving the Corporation, she's entitled to her beliefs without being held up here as a "double-standard", she doesn't push her Christianity aggressively as you push your atheism, she's done us all a great service in her life's work, and I do not fault her for deciding she still wants to believe in Christianity. Just as I don't fault you for deciding atheism is your path.

I can understand what led you to reach your belief system, I can understand what led her to hers.
Room enough in the universe for both beliefs.

With that, I'm done again.
Run as far and as long with it as you wish.

<<<she's entitled to her beliefs without being held up here as a "double-standard">>>

That's nonsense. She's entitled to her beliefs, yes. But she's not entitled to a free pass when she is in fact employing a double standard.

She's provided a service, yes. Nobody disputes that.

Steve's question was an honest one: why haven't you applied the same standards to christianity as you have mormonism?

She had every right to respond: "Actually, I have and look what I found out!" But she didn't. She responded with negative emotions and an appeal to testimony.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,366174,366318#msg-366318



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 02:29PM by steve benson.

Back in the '70's, the only objective information that I could find on the Mormon church outside of the Morridor was at a Christian bookstore (I visited it once to buy a bible for a college class, and dropped in a few times thereafter out of curiosity.) Granted, the "anti-Mormon" books had a purpose in mind (to advance other types of Christianity at the expense of Mormonism,) but it was rather easy to take that into account and to focus instead on the documented facts about the LDS church. Since the only other sources of information for me at the time were from one friend who converted, another who was struggling with his Mormon roots, and the church itself, the Christian bookstore provided the only counter view.

I think it's an interesting question if you can value information, and the source of the information, even if you disagree with the reason that the information is being promoted. For instance I value the work on geneology that the LDS church has done, although I disagree vehemently with the reason for doing it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 01:05PM by summer.