Which half?

Excerpts from Salt Lake Tribune article:

"So, by statement, example, photo op and policy, the church’s leaders have made it clear they want members to get vaccinated. And members’ responses to the PRRI [survey] questions suggest they generally trust their church leaders, and they agree getting vaccinated is what a loving religious person should do.

"Yet half do not plan to actually get vaccinated.

"There’s more. My fourth and final point is it’s not just that Latter-day Saints in general say they trust their leaders. A separate question asked respondents if they trusted their religious leaders to give them good information specifically about the COVID-19 vaccine.

"Once again, Latter-day Saints came out at the very top of the heap, with the highest positive response of any religious group.

"So, Latter-day Saints: What gives?

"My take from this is that, as a colleague reminded me recently, we’ve reached a point in the intersection of religion and American politics where politics trumps religion. When push comes to shove, people will now choose their cherished political beliefs over and against the teachings of their religion.

"We’ve seen this for years with progressive Latter-day Saints who have sided with LGBTQ rights even when their church leaders repeatedly and unequivocally taught homosexuality and same-sex marriage were sins. Liberal members have been inhabiting that "dissonant space for a long time now.

"In U.S. Mormonism, conservative members have long considered their politics a natural and godly extension of their religion. Being so clearly on the wrong side of the church is a new position for them."

-----

Yes, indeed, Mormons - what gives? As the article writer asks. Ignoring advice from the Big Guys? Wow - where will it end?

Interesting, though, the estimate of 50% who aren't automatically falling into line behind church leaders, at least on the issue of the COVID vaccination.

Maybe if they see that the sky doesn't fall in when they don't unthinkingly obey they may extend their independent thinking (at least, independent from the Big Guys) and ponder which beliefs, if any, really resonate with them. (Not that I applaud vaccine refusal but looking at the trend in general perhaps towards less dependence on church leaders' mandates, that's not all bad in and of itself).

**The article writer states the survey sample size is small, so perhaps skewing the results towards the higher side (so maybe 50% is an inaccurate estimate and wouldn't hold if more members were included in the survey).

Although the article makes reference to the issue being political (beliefs about this specific vaccine arising from political allegiance and not being particularly anti-vax in entirety) we can't go there in discussions on RfM. (Plea to not get me deleted!) But, in general, if a significant number of Mormons are putting their political beliefs ahead of the word from on high (advice from church leaders) that is interesting indeed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2021 06:08PM by Nightingale.

What's happening is that traditional religion is being supplanted by political religion. Mormons recognize their bosses as divinely inspired but not as inspired as their political leaders.

This is not religion losing ground to politics. It's a religious cult losing ground to a religious cult. SLC can't be happy about that although this does explain why the Q15 daren't challenge Ammon Bundy, for he is a prophet of the more inspiring religion.

Mormonism is close to Nietzsche's late 19th century Europe, in which everyone purported a vague religiosity but was not truly committed to Christianity and people were sitting ducks for the totalitarian cults of communism and fascism.

Humanity has done this many times in the past. There is nothing new under the sun.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2021 06:14PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormons recognize their bosses as divinely inspired but
> not as inspired as their political leaders.

From a religious point of view, this is astronomical (in my experience of religion).

But I get what you're saying, LW, about cult/cult.

To this day, I resist admitting, even inwardly, that I was ever part of a cult (being baptized as a JW and later in the Mormon Church). I know why I did it and it was 100% entirely from a religious belief that was separate from, and pre-existing, either group. When I left them I did not lose my religion, so to speak. I just thought I saw something in them that turned out not to be so. Disappointing but not fatal.

I never regretted my JW baptism, as it meant something deeply personal to me, but the LDS one? Yeah, like right when it happened. Although trying to make the best of it, I went on to the temple in due course, still searching for some kind of meaning. Quel disappointment! I found it weird yet still never thought of the 'C' word. I only came across that at RfM and still feel a bit shocked when I see it.

"Nothing new under the sun" - I can definitely agree with this. It helps to notice patterns. For sure I won't be leaping into any more fonts belonging to any fringe groups. (Or anyone). Twice is more than plenty, thankyouverymuch.

>>This is not religion losing ground to politics. It's a religious cult losing ground to a religious cult.

I spent the weekend reading "Merchants of Deception" by Eric Scheibeler. (It's free to read online.) Eric had been a very high level distributor in the Amway organization, but ended up financially ruined by his involvement, as so many people do who get deeply involved with MLMs, particularly Amway and its numerous affiliates. I was fascinated to see the parallels with Mormonism because both draw from the cult playbook: a) It claims to be family-oriented, but in reality the demands of the organization drain family time, b) constant indoctrination, c) use of exhaustion/sleep deprivation (in Mormonism, think early-morning seminary,) d) adulation of leaders, e) over-dependence on the leaders' advice in even minor matters (Mormons constantly running to the bishop,) f) doing chores that go above and beyond (i.e. working on church farms, "service" for leaders, cleaning the ward buildings, temples, etc. despite paying generous tithes,) g) being told to not consult outside sources, h) self-blame, i) the experience of cognitive dissonance as information comes in that contradicts what the organization tells you, j) name-calling of those who start to doubt or who leave, k) false allegations of those who leave (i.e. porn-viewing, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.) There is so much more but that gives the idea.

The book's author went to consult cult-expert Steve Hassan. Steve, a former Moonie, explained to Eric that there are many different kinds of cults -- religious, political, financial, self-improvement, UFO, etc.

And that's when it hit me that certain elements of our American society are currently in the grip of a political cult.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 08:41AM by summer.

Well LW. That is scary. That did not help my already dim view of the future and recent history surely supports your view. Of course people can lock their doors with their iPhones, so all will turn out all right.

How do you separate church and state when the Elephants and the Donkeys are religions?

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do you separate church and state when the
> Elephants and the Donkeys are religions?

The danger comes from new animals on the scene - predators.

Growing up in a church that made claims that were extraordinary made me a through-and-through skeptic.

I left the church, but I kept the skepticism.

The vaccine is a topic that causes me to be skeptical.

My mind is open to all information regarding the vaccine pro and con.

At this time, the vaccine is not going to happen for me. That is not to say I refuse to submit. I may, if I find sufficient information to persuade me. (Thanks, I can do my own research, so spare me your links)

I won’t state the reasons for my decisions. It only gives people something to argue about and insist that their conclusions are the only conclusions that are correct.

It seems that a fair number of people have enlisted their trust in a specific point of view and cannot be swayed and refuse to consider anything that may cause them cognitive dissonance. (Sound familiar ex-mos?)

Those are the people who everyone should worry about.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems that a fair number of people have
> enlisted their trust in a specific point of view
> and cannot be swayed and refuse to consider
> anything that may cause them cognitive dissonance.

The question isn't whether people "trust" any point of view but whether they evaluate evidence appropriately and hence come up with reasonable probabilities on which to act.

Religious people do not. They are not capable of evaluating evidence, even mountains of evidence, objectively.


-------------
> (Sound familiar ex-mos?)

All too familiar. For many people the ability to analyze evidence remains crippled even after they leave a cult.


------------
> Those are the people who everyone should worry
> about.

Indeed.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are not capable of
> evaluating evidence, even mountains of evidence,
> objectively.
===============================

Thinkers keep shoveling mountains of evidence and attempting reason

- Who's the one with no learning curve? ;-D

Where are my cookies?

- so guess what tune is now stuck in me head? :-D

I know politics is off limits BUT.......

There is a political element to this trend within Mormonism. Since Ezra Taft Benson the cult has really pushed a political agenda...there is a right party and a wrong party. They don't do this openly from the pulpit in general conference, but attend an elders quorum meeting and you will hear it openly discussed.

So now the 'right' party has gone bat-shit-crazy and all the lemmings are head down marching along.

NoToJoe (unregistered) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So now the 'right' party has gone bat-shit-crazy
> and all the lemmings are head down marching along.
===============================

and invest in popcorn :-)


(These inevitably turn on and destroy each other. It's programmed.
Do what must be done, but in the long view it's self-limited)

"These inevitably turn on and destroy each other. It's programmed."

But that will take years (10-15 minimum) to work itself through. I don't care at all what happens to either of them; it's the collateral damage that concerns me. They will leave a ton of wreckage in their wake.

Anonymous Muser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They will leave a ton of wreckage in
> their wake.
===============================

Of course.
That is why: do what must be done.

The critical error is always self-delusion on what is being dealt with. Think Chamberlain.

They already have turned on their own,

Exhibit A: Mitt Romney,
by far THE most successful Mormon politician EVER, and by far the most popular politician amongst Utahns, booed off the UT GOP stage and nearly censured, why? Because he followed the dictates of his MORmON Conscience^tm to obey the law and honor the constitution.

to drain all that water out.

Shooting your own generals & soldiers to gain victory.



I don't see the problem :-D

Doesn’t this prove that half of all Mormons aren’t brain dead robots? Or at least not robots.

The question is which half aren't robots?

Under our legal system, employers and schools are allowed to specify that employees and students be vaccinated. There may come a point (especially after full FDA approval, which Pfizer is currently seeking,) when that starts to happen. Unvaccinated people could also continue to be subject to travel restrictions.

I'm amazed to see how many people here have jumped to conclusions as to why people might be hesistant. Among other things, I have major blood-related and cardiovascular problems on both sides of my family. I know this from speaking to some of them and genealogical research. That plus some other factors make me concerned. I have never had heart disease etc but most of close relatives have. I don't want to start.

VAERS figures shows thousands of deaths and severe reactions in the USA. If these were any other forms of medication they would have been withdrawn months ago. But it's barely being reported on. Normally they would only need three adverse reactions to do so. The European Union and Canadian authorities are also investigating effects from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna.

VAERS is part of a FEDERAL agency. I know some people here only like information from the governments and scientists - well, there you go.

If you have had bad side effects, please report them at the link below. A lot of people aren't - this includes anything which goes on longer than a day or two, dizziness, bruising or bleeding etc.

Report here:
https://vaers.hhs.gov

I get the hesitancy. Many African-Americans are also hesitant due to a long history of being subject to medical experiments.

However, it *is* rather frustrating. I want to see an end to this. I want to be finished with the mask-wearing, social distancing, and Covid testing. I want to be finished with having to worry about it. If enough people don't get vaccinated, it will prolong the epidemic. If we only get to 50% or 60% total that are vaccinated, it may not be enough to stop Covid. From what scientists are saying, we likely need at least 70-80% vaccinated.

You neglected to point out that the VAERS database is self-reported and unverified. People can go to the database and report they had a reaction. It has been flooded by so many bogus claims from anti-vaxxers that it is nearly useless.

When the FDA decided J&J plant (in Baltimore?) wasn't up to snuff, they had no problem requiring that 15 million doses be discarded, even though that was a retail value of $600 million. Even for Big Pharma, that is a lot of money. And the vaccines were already in short supply at the time. Didn't matter. they had to dump them.

Also 8 clotting problem reports got distribution of another vaccine halted for a week or so so they could analyze the seriousness of the problem.

You present your hesitancy on the vaccine as if there is a risk to taking the vaccine, and no risk if you don't. That is a normal human tendency, but it unfortunately is not reality. The real choice is you take 100% of the risk of the vaccine, versus (very roughly) 30% to 50% risk of eventually catching covid. And how many covid patients had circulatory or severe pulmonary problems? Quite a few. Up in the low millions in the US.

And how many had severe clotting problems from (just 1 of) the vaccines? A dozen or so, so far (of actual verified incidents, not VAERS reports), roughly 1 in a million doses. You're more likely to get in a car accident driving to the vaccination site.


Long story short - very few deaths from the vaccine (and in the first 12 weeks or so most of the recipients in the US were over 65, a group where people are more likely to be sick and frail and die just because old), compared to 600K to 900K deaths from covid itself, depending on which estimates you accept.

Most of the 600K official deaths (so far) were also old people. They now have a vaccination level of 82%, and (covid) deaths in that age group have dropped way off. Funny how that works.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 11:37AM by Brother Of Jerry.

It puzzles me how people will take all kinds of drugs with long warning sections on the direction insert documenting all the possible problems that can arise yet they are fixated on something less probable. The CDC/FDA was being extraordinarily cautious monitoring the possible side effects of the vaccine.

I know people on birth control pills refusing the vaccine because of clot risk. They never bothered to find out about the potential higher risk of clots from the other meds they take without a second thought.

It's damn unfortunate that the vaccine got caught up in politics.

When you see a drug advertisement on TV, they have to read off all the potential side effects. People usually ignore them and take whatever is prescribed. But boy howdy that vaccine has them terrified. Guess why.

It’s too bad Mormonism doesn’t come with an insert listing all of the side effects. What I got was basically “Stupid in a box”.

Anecdotal family health problems and (presumably) online genealogical family history searches have guided Big J to his current position.

But how many in your extended family, with the same family history, have partaken of one or the other vaccine and lived to tell the tale?

It makes sense to me that you would claim to have made your decision 'on your own'. But you won't sit back and allow others that same courtesy. Why is that? Do you really think the Nobel Prize is within reach?

If you have heart problems, J-man, you are right to avoid the vaccines since people with heart disease do splendidly when they contract COVID.

More seriously, you got deleted yesterday for posting almost exactly the same COVID misinformation. Hint: if you cannot find scientific information and choose instead to go with self-reported anecdotes as support for your position, you have more fundamental problems than a potentially fatal pandemic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 01:15PM by Lot's Wife.

This from the American Heart Association:

"People with heart disease or stroke – or for that matter, risk factors for heart disease and stroke – are at much greater risk from the virus than they are from the vaccine."

. . .

"People with all kinds of cardiovascular risk factors and disease should definitely get vaccinated to protect themselves and their families from COVID-19."


Quotations from: Dr. Mitchell Elkind, a professor of neurology and epidemiology at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City




*The entire article is https://consumer.healthday.com/aha-news-what-heart-and-stroke-patients-should-know-about-covid-19-vaccines-2649952383.html

I have a friend who refuses to get vaccinated, because she doesn't know what's in it and what its effects are.

We don't know what covid's effects are on specific individuals. They range from negligible to fatal, and include organ failure.

This friend does botox, a compound so toxic they put that in the <bleeping> name.

She drinks alcohol, a known neurotoxin. And liver toxin.

And buys a Costco hotdog every time she goes there to shop.

And she's worried about the vaccine? D'oh!

Lot and I were once sitting in a restaurant in Berlin. At the table next to us were a pair of middle-aged Germans. They were discussing genetically modified food and were quite anxious about the health threat it represented, indeed they wanted the EU to ban American exports of such commodities.

I was struck by two things. First, virtually all foods consumed today are genetically modified--that's largely what the Agricultural Revolution entailed. Second, the two men were smoking like chimneys as they bemoaned the dangers of corn-fed beef.

Ironic, that.

GMO techniques are fairly new, started in the mid-1990’s.
Not to be confused with selective breeding and cross breeding, which goes back thousands of years.

GMO is a different game, with unknown long term consequences, and possible unintended consequences.

Not unreasonable to approach with caution.

Other habits detrimental to personal health is irrelevant.

What is the difference, on a genetic level, of changing genes through hybridization and by more modern methods?

Again, on a genetic level.

Let’s ‘circle back’ to the original topic.

Genetic editing is a field that uses the approach of targeting a specific need. Successful outcomes may occur, but what collateral damage may not have been seen in the original mission statement? The possibility of unforeseen long term negative outcomes is, at this time, unclear and potentially dangerous.

Many are inclined to accept advances at face value. I, as stated previously, prefer to eye these advances with caution and skepticism.

At no time would I suggest that my views should be universally accepted.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let’s ‘circle back’ to the original topic.

I'll take that as meaning you can't answer the question.


------------
> Genetic editing is a field that uses the approach
> of targeting a specific need. Successful outcomes
> may occur, but what collateral damage may not have
> been seen in the original mission statement? The
> possibility of unforeseen long term negative
> outcomes is, at this time, unclear and potentially
> dangerous.

All of that can be said with equal validity about hybridization and other established means of achieving the same end. Hybridization and refinement of specific traits--yes, Anatolian farmers sought to promote specific target traits 12,000 years ago--are subject to precisely the same criticism.

And yes, the old methods occasionally engendered--and engender today--"collateral damage." So unless you can spell out something different about modern genetic modification, on a genetic level, you're there is no basis for your concerns.


---------------
> Many are inclined to accept advances at face
> value. I, as stated previously, prefer to eye
> these advances with caution and skepticism.

That's fine. But when you turn a blind eye to scientific data, you are not being cautious: you are being blind.


---------------
> At no time would I suggest that my views should be
> universally accepted.

Well, then there's no reason why you keep singling me out for "correction." Why don't you turn your guns on BoJ or others who are saying the same thing?

You, Bemis/Salviati, Scat, and others all seem to feel more comfortable attacking an argument when I make it but not when the others do.

Why is that?

“Scientific data”, much like statistics are subject to bias. Not in the raw form necessarily, but when cherry-picked and biased to present results that someone is profiting from.

It’s just how humans operate.

I apologize for the numerous(!)“correction”s. It’ll never happen again.

I don't care if we argue, csuprovo, but it is remarkable that when BoJ or someone else posts the same thing as I you always choose to come after me.

On the substance, yes data can be manipulated. But on these questions what matters is if there is a demonstrable statistical error. The numbers on the vaccine are clear: vastly better outcomes for the vaccinated. The data on genetic modification are clear: it's been done with the same track record for 12,000 years. Merely saying that "I have doubts" isn't a good strategy if you cannot identify any methodological questions.

Which is of course what BoJ said above.

There are not a lot of people protesting human insulin produced by GMO bacteria, and wanting pig insulin instead. If those are the choices, they’d just as soon have real human insulin, regardless of how it is produced.

Dogs are GMO wolves, done the slow way. Some of the breeds have serious genetic problems. The slow way is not without its problems.

Genetic modification presents a number of interesting and concerning issues, however it is done.

      I have spent a lifetime modifying the color of White women's babies.

      It was a dirty job, and no, it didn't have to be done, but I did it anyway, plus it helped pass the time...

Nephalim, Lamanite, what’s the difference?

      It's all in the wind-up and delivery.

The “slow way” tends to eliminate the genetically inferior modifications on it’s own over time.

Not at all true.

The Agricultural Revolution caused human nutritional standards to decline markedly from Hunter Gatherer days and introduced a vast range of pathogens to humanity. Both those problems continue to manifest today, whether it is an overabundance of carbohydrates and hence obesity, heart disease, and diabetes; or influenza and other zoonotic diseases that regularly cross the species barrier; or the loss of genetic variation that renders crops highly vulnerable to new pests. All of those problems emerged 12,000 years ago and all of them are still present.

What you are showing is that you don't understand plant genetics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 08:42PM by Lot's Wife.

I choose caution. I fully anticipate that money buys the results most of the time, regardless of actual science.

In my observation of your posts, I am sure you have every confidence in the data you use to bolster your views.

PS-this post is NOT a ‘correction’. Any similarities are purely coincidental.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 08:51PM by csuprovograd.

You made an assertion that was falsifiable based on 12,000 years of evidence. If that is too rapid for you, so be it.

But you are wrong. Time has not sorted out the bad mutations from the good.

Jeez.

Cross breeding, selective breeding for a minute has been used.

Around 1990 gene editing ‘under the microscope’ began.

You can’t recognize that there is a difference in methodology?

Or, must we accept your posts as scientific peer-reviewed articles and behave accordingly?

Wrong is such a strong word, isn’t it?

> You can’t recognize that there is a difference
> in methodology?

Of course I can. But the question remains: what is the genetic problem with the new methodology?


-------------
> Or, must we accept your posts as scientific
> peer-reviewed articles and behave accordingly?

Of course not. I merely pointed out that if you are going to reject the science on the vaccines, it's best to have a rational basis for doing so. A million-to-one odds are unlikely to be reversed no matter how flawed the interpretation may be. A mistake of one order of magnitude is possible, maybe even two, but not six.

And the problems engendered by the Agricultural Revolution and its effects on human health and epidemiology are well established. I could offer references--more history at this late stage than controversial science--but you can look them up yourself if you are so inclined.


-----------------
> Wrong is such a strong word, isn’t it?

"Wrong" is the correct word for the assertions about hybridization and genetics. The academic debate is over whether the effects of the Agricultural Revolution even today have moved into net-positive territory. I could sugarcoat the point, but I don't think you really need that.

The nexus of my views on this and other matters is not based in the absolutism of right or wrong as you seem to assert.

Rather, humans are unpredictable and tend toward self-preservation. They will lie, cheat, steal and anything else to protect themselves. There are examples of wanton disregard for humanity in history by humans with selfish intent. Humans are not to be trusted blindly. Full stop.


As for the issue of vaccination, my demographic has a 96% chance of not dying of Covid. I can live with that (pun intended).

I and my oncologist are looking at monoclonal immuno-boosting infusion in lieu of mRNA based vaccine with a product that has been tested and passed phase 3 trials and is FDA approved.

Not a matter of right or wrong. A matter of perspective from a human who was fooled by a church that appears to most people as an honest enterprise, from within and without. Daring to defy and deny the common belief sometimes is a good thing.

I respect your skepticism.

You'll note that I did not speak in absolutes: I mentioned probability and the possibility, which I think unlikely, that the official data could be off by a factor of 100. my point is that they are unlikely to be off by a factor of 1,000,000.

I'd also note that the COVID vaccines have also been through Stage Three tests, so your immunotherapy is of similar safety or, conversely, risk. Also, when looking for conflicts of interest it's at least as important to evaluate the qualifications of the people who are arguing against the consensus, for they too have an incentive to lie and falsify.

it is my understanding that the vaccines are in Phase 3 trials. They have not been concluded. FDA approval is still pending.

The alternate I am considering has completed Phase 3 trials and has been cleared by the FDA.

As for absolutes, using statements such as “you’re wrong” is kind of an absolute example of black/white thinking. “You have no understanding of plant genetics” is another example.

Absolutely.

You were, and are, wrong about the agricultural question. The vast majority of human illnesses are zoonotic in nature. Denying that would be like saying it's an open question whether the earth is the center of the solar system. So to that extent, yes, this is a black-and-white issue.

Regarding COVID, Pfizer's vaccine passed Stage Three trials in mid-November; Moderna's passed that milestone in late December; and J&J, in February. All three were authorized by the FDA almost immediately thereafter. The vaccines are as thoroughly vetted as your immunotherapy.

I acknowledge that all medical innovation has risks and that the approval process is not foolproof. But the odds of significant errors are quite small.

I guess time will tell...

You see? That's where you lose me.

You established the standard: passing Stage Three trials and garnering FDA approval. By your standard, the vaccines are safe.

But when you move the goalposts, it's no longer about rationality. You have entered emotional territory.

Rigid thinking brings rigid conclusions.

I mention that one therapy is further down the road, you fixate on that and ignore the part where I maintain throughout this little tete-a-teté that my skepticism lies in the innate greed of humans, especially humans who have power.

My off-the-beaten-path thinking remains distrustful, especially when there is so much insistence that there is only one savior, er, vaccine (or is it a trinity?).

As I said, (the part where you got lost) I will choose how to proceed based on my own investigations, I will not submit to groupthink. Been there - hated it.

That's fine. But it's clear that you are acting on emotion.

Skepticism is great insofar as it forces us to question assumptions and dig for greater clarity. But if it is so great that there are no logical metrics, it becomes the opposite of rigor.

It becomes a gelatinous substance into which some people might mix chunks of pineapple or even carrots.