Top Ten Most Offensive Statements By LDS Church Leaders

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

"Elite" and "Competent" are not synonyms. But yes, it is a fact that there is a negative correlation between success in research and god belief. This does not mean that one can't be a successful scientist and religious; there are many examples of this. It just means that it tends not to be the case.

I submit you and woot are narrowly defining scientist to mean research scientists who join trendy organizations to have a good looking resume.

Are scientists who develop inventions but who do not engage in traditional research elite? hey, they're often doing something practical.

Are scientists who got great grades but decided to go teach high school also not elite?

I could go on, but let's state woot's case as crassly as he is, "Only smart dudes don''t believe in God, and really dumb people like y'all believe in God, it's scientifically proven."

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I submit you and woot are narrowly defining scientist to mean research scientists who join trendy organizations to have a good looking resume.

Are scientists who develop inventions but who do not engage in traditional research elite? hey, they're often doing something practical.

Are scientists who got great grades but decided to go teach high school also not elite?

I could go on, but let's state woot's case as crassly as he is, "Only smart dudes don''t believe in God, and really dumb people like y'all believe in God, it's scientifically proven."

Keep going with your simple-minded binary thinking; I'm sure it makes your life easier.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Keep going with your simple-minded binary thinking; I'm sure it makes your life easier.

Simple-minded and binary, that's me.

You posit, "elite scientists" as only those that join the organization you designate and all others "not elite." Sounds binary to me.

I posit, there are lots of scientists functioning in many realms some of them choosing not to participate in the ivory tower, and these guys might still be considered elite. Thomas Edison wasn't much of a researcher in the classical sense, but his inventions certainly contributed to society, and he would be considered elite by others, of course not by you.

Woot, for such a young guy, you have developed quite a sense of self-importance and hubris. So when you get a mighty anthropology degree does that also convey omniscience in particle physics, inorganic and thermo-dynamic chemistry, together with molecular biology as well as genetics and hemonology?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

Keep going with your simple-minded binary thinking; I'm sure it makes your life easier.

This is so ironic that it is comical. I know you will shout in defiance and red-cheeked denial, but there is no one that posts here regularly that is any more dogmatic than you.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by scottie

Obviously one can choose not to be offended by something, but like Woot brought up that doesn't make a comment un-offensive. I'm not easily offended but much either, but I can't understand how a black or an American Indian or homosexual would feel about those comments.

Or a woman.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by marsupial

Or a woman.

Who invited your opinion here? Gee, now there goes the neighborhood.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

lol.

I just thought it was kind of funny that subconsciously you thought it was Taq Man posting this list. As a good fiend of mine is apt to say, "speaks volumes".

I'm starting to think you don't like me Jeff.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Solon wanted an alternative theory, so I tried one. I don't know what the truth is, [. . . ]

EDIT: To Solon's credit, he didn't bait me by asking for an alternative theory and then pounce on me like everyone else has.

Originally Posted by Tex

We're not really going down this road again are we? I guess given the quotes, it was inevitable.

Thanks, Indy. I really was sincere. I've realized that nobody is going to change positions on this issue. As Tex alluded, this is well worked ground here on CG and most people have staked their claim and formed their ideas. Fair enough. I just honestly wanted to know how else someone could explain it other than through a racial lens.

Assuming that god exists, is interested in human affairs, etc. etc., I think that, just as we can't know all the ramifications, implications, and reasons for the priesthood ban and how it figured into the great and complete divine plan, so we can't really know what god is like, his nature, character, etc. (despite what JS said in Lecture on Faith III). We feel free to accept Jesus' merciful god, but are unwilling to recognize the vengeful, jealous, bloodthirsty god of the OT. We are content to cherry-pick stories and aphorisms that back up our preconceived notions of what a "father" god is like. I don't buy it, and think there's more to the story. We may know some . . . . we may know a lot . . . . but I doubt anyone knows the whole story.

I personally don't know very many answers, knowing only that I don't know (like Arch's signature line). Agnosticism is unsettling and unsatisfying, that's for sure.

At any rate, my issue isn't with the doctrine per se - churches of all kinds believe all sorts of stuff, some good, some bad, some crazy. My issue is with the current LDS leadership's unwillingness to own or refute this doctrine in a public, unambiguous way. But that's another topic.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Simple-minded and binary, that's me.

You posit, "elite scientists" as only those that join the organization you designate and all others "not elite." Sounds binary to me.

I posit, there are lots of scientists functioning in many realms some of them choosing not to participate in the ivory tower, and these guys might still be considered elite. Thomas Edison wasn't much of a researcher in the classical sense, but his inventions certainly contributed to society, and he would be considered elite by others, of course not by you.

Woot, for such a young guy, you have developed quite a sense of self-importance and hubris. So when you get a mighty anthropology degree does that also convey omniscience in particle physics, inorganic and thermo-dynamic chemistry, together with molecular biology as well as genetics and hemonology?

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.

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

This is so ironic that it is comical. I know you will shout in defiance and red-cheeked denial, but there is no one that posts here regularly that is any more dogmatic than you.

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