Top Ten Most Offensive Statements By LDS Church Leaders

[jay santos]

Elder Bednar's talk is going to screw us up for a while I think.

These comments surely are offensive. If I punch you in the nose, you don't choose whether or not it hurts. You can decide to forgive and not retaliate, but I still hurt you.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

As you might expect, I consider this statement, on a Mormon message board, no less, to be the ultimate in comedy.

I knew you would, which just makes your behavior here all the more ironic.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Elder Bednar's talk is going to screw us up for a while I think.

Which talk was that?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

You're bombing territory I don't occupy. I specifically stated that by elite I was referring to members of the NAS, a very prestigious organization populated by only the best scientists. I refer to that organization because that's the one that was studied. If you think the results at other elite organizations would be different, I think you're deluding yourself. You invocation of Edison is a total non sequitur. The study was done on research scientists. Whining that such a study excludes those that are not research scientists is like whining that a study of diabetes patients excludes those without diabetes.

The entirety of your last paragraph is the typical arm-flailing that I've come to expect when you are wrong about something and don't know how to respond other than to state the obvious in an authoritative way.

We know exactly how to respond to your f..ing arrogance. You may be a good anthropologist, but you're a lousy logician.

Basically you pick an isolated study that agrees with your point of view and appeal to that authority. Nice analysis Sherlock. I suggest you take some formal logic courses. I did and did quite well. You apparently skipped those.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We know exactly how to respond to your f..ing arrogance. You may be a good anthropologist, but you're a lousy logician.

Basically you pick an isolated study that agrees with your point of view and appeal to that authority. Nice analysis Sherlock. I suggest you take some formal logic courses. I did and did quite well. You apparently skipped those.

And those courses taught you to ignore statistics? I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Every poll I've ever seen shows that scientific education and religious belief are inversely correlated. If you'd like to show me polls that indicate otherwise I'll retract my comments. Otherwise you're just typing for the sake of response. When the vast majority here disagree with me, a generic response is probably sufficient to overcome the evidence, but I'd like to think a few of us actually pay attention to what is said beyond the peen swinging.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's an interesting comment from an actuary.

Yes, I am following what I consider to be the preponderance of evidence. The odds of a divine origin are quite small, IMO. Right around zero.

Actuaries don't stochastically simulate God. Furthermore, you can't ever prove the null hypothesis, you can only fail to reject it.

[Brian]

Boy, do you guys have a life?
I write a post or two, leave work, go home, go out to dinner with the fam. on a Friday night and there are 9823984858 more posts. (c:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I fail to see how that's the only conclusion you can draw. I don't think people are in the "ghetto" necessarily due to them or their parents or their 35th great grandparents pissing God off. What other reasons could there be? Probably many reasons, but just because I can't think of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Yes, that's not the only conclusion, but it appears to be the one that was proposed in our early history.
I can think of lots of reasons why this would happen, but the reasons proposed aren't one of them.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You just said "I believe that everyone gets the *perfect* experience they needed to have here on earth." Hence, your quote above appears to be self-contradictory.

Yes, everyone gets the experience they need. But that decision isn't the result of a pissed off god. Unless he's pissed off at everyone. Because everyone messes up, all the time, now and previously.

Originally Posted by M. Peterson

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood... This Negro, who in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincerer faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessing of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. (Race Problems--As They Affect The Church, An address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College level; Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.)

Anyone who would behave as Peterson describes above is an asshole.
But at least Peterson's god a semi-merciful god. If such a pre-existent sinner behaves, he can leave the ghetto and be the butler in a nice neighborhood.

What a nice guy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Actuaries don't stochastically simulate God. Furthermore, you can't ever prove the null hypothesis, you can only fail to reject it.

Fair enough.

FWIW, I was referring to your "If you want to play oddsmaker..." comment.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

And those courses taught you to ignore statistics? I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Every poll I've ever seen shows that scientific education and religious belief are inversely correlated. If you'd like to show me polls that indicate otherwise I'll retract my comments. Otherwise you're just typing for the sake of response. When the vast majority here disagree with me, a generic response is probably sufficient to overcome the evidence, but I'd like to think a few of us actually pay attention to what is said beyond the peen swinging.

We're supposed to believe, you who has an agenda? You have no credibility in terms of honesty.

I don't believe sufficient data exists on "belief", but it would not surprise me that those with more education have less belief in organized religion than those with less. So we are supposed to believe you for summarizing, correlating and compiling all data on what scientists believe? Hmm. Thanks, no, I'll do my own research. And I'm not certain it's relevant any way.

[pelagius]

This is getting silly. Woot's original response to Chino was essentially correct. Woot did emphasize the most extreme survey of disbelief among scientist. Yes, NAS is an elite reseach society so I don't have a problem with him emphasizing that. Other surveys of research scientist at elite universities do not produce such extreme results. Typically surveys find that about 60% either "do not believe in God" or "or don't know if there is a God and there is no way to find out." So the NAS are an extreme sample. Some of this could be related to the survey question given to the NAS sample which I think defined a very active God: "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind." Clearly one could believe in God in a general sense and disagree with the preceding statement.

Second, there is a rather large difference between the beliefs of scientists in God and the general population. The percentage for the US general population hovers around 10% (disbelief).

Third, these surveys are a long way from empirically providing evidence of the secularizing effect of education on measures of both religious activity and belief. You need a much more careful empirical design to answer that question.

Finally, woot you do have a tendency to display "intellectual contempt" towards other board members. This may be entirely unintended but at these point in your cougarguard life people are starting to respond to this perception instead of your arguments. My suggestion is to start give your opponent's argument the most charitable possible reading instead of trying to attack their weakest link. You are essentially a non-believer on a "faithful" (despite its liberal leanings) board. As such you need to negotiate the board with a thick skin and a great deal charity towards the faithful or you will find yourself marginalized.