Vort

My laugh count is no longer at 666. Thanks a bunch, guys. Does this mean I can sand the horns down?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

That's because, unlike me, you are of a pure and chaste mind. I am sure that, looking at Le Déjeuner sur l'Herbe, your only thought is, "Why don't those cads give that poor girl a coat to wear?"

The child's parents should attend class with her until she settles down. Every week that she acts up, the parent should be summoned and should sit in class with her. This is typically sufficient to calm children down, but whether it works or not, the child is the parent's responsibility.

Circumcision violates the integrity of the body. Are you suggesting the pronouncing the name of a dead person is tantamount to cutting the genitalia of a living baby? Clearly, this is difficult for you. Let me try again to explain: I understand why some Jews might be offended. But their offense is illogical and nonsensical. In the same sense, I understand why my daughter might scream with frustration when playing a Pokemon game, but that doesn't mean I condone her screaming or that I think it's justified. Furthermore, I expect more of adults than I do of ten-year-olds. Strange, then, that you have no comprehension whatsoever of the invalidity of the arguments made against LDS temple ordinances. One would think you, better than most, would be in a position to see exactly how specious such arguments are. Apparently, you do. Then why don't you tell me what the crux of the argument is? On the contrary, I see why. I simply maintain that it's irrelevant and illogical, and that furthermore it is religious bigotry to pursue something that, by their own belief, so clearly does not touch them (or their ancestors). Translation: "I search in vain to see that you agree with me." Then demonstrate my "ignorance and intolerance ignorance and intolerance" (is there an echo in here?) as I have demonstrated the bigotry of those who rail against LDS temple ordinances. Don't just call names, voldagon. Man up and let's see the evidence. Now you are asserting the validity of LDS ordinances. But if the Jews accept the validity of LDS ordinances, they cannot object to them -- because if LDS ordinances are valid, they are divine. So either the LDS ordinances are valid (as we believe) and thus are of God, or the LDS ordinances are invalid (as the Jews believe) and thus are of no possible moment whatsoever. Of course not. Similarly, I can find any number of things about the Jews offensive, from their yarmulkes to their belief in the Torah to their laws of kosher. But the fact that I might find some Jewish practices or beliefs offensive does not MAKE those practices or beliefs offensive. It might, however, make me a bigot if I am offended by them. Why shouldn't they be? This is a complete non sequitur. The ordinances in no possible sense touch the dead people whose names are being pronounced. Unless you accept that the LDS rites are divinely authorized. But we have already discussed that point; no practicing Jew could accept that they are divinely authorized or object to them if he did. Why? Because I don't agree? You labor under the delusion that, if only someone could see the truth as you see it, they would most certainly share your opinion. You are wrong. I see the truth, I understand the feelings of the parties involved, and yet I still maintain that those who rail against LDS temple ordinances are not merely illogical, but bigoted.

I'm relatively famililar with Elder McConkie's writings and speeches. I have never heard him suggest that the Fall was a "Word of Wisdom" issue. Can you cite a source for this?

Anyone else find the stained glass window image...disturbing?

Again with the condescension? Yes, I have a clue. Really. And I daresay that the Jews alive today have not "suffered centuries upon centuries of suffering and persecution". Is that part of their family history? Yes. Does it mean they should be allowed to interfere with the religious rites of others? No. I said nothing about wine. Baloney. Where's the dead person? Did we dig him up? We are imposing no rituals on anyone. That is a lie. Interestingly, I am criticizing ignorant bigotry, while you are criticizing me as an individual. It succeeds well for all those who don't have their fingers firmly in their ears and their eyes shut tight. Once again, you maintain that I fail to understand others simply because I disagree with them. You are giving lie to your own words, voldagon: You can't have it both ways, voldagon. Are they offended at the actions themselves, or are they offended at our intentions in performing those actions? Quit changing sides based on what fits your thesis at the moment. Pick one. So is your point that I'm wrong or that I'm mean? You keep asserting that I don't understand, or that I refuse to understand. Your assertion is false, however, unless you can show more evidence than the fact that I refuse to accept the specious "reasoning" for the complaints. Also, try to keep the personal edge off your attacks.

No. But if you're whispering sweet nothings into your own ear, you have some anatomical weirdness going on.

I wasn't actually trolling for thanks. I just wanted to make sure you had seen it, in case it helped you. Good luck.

That is a distinction without a difference, unless you happen to be LDS. For non-LDS, including Jews, the distinction is meaningless. It is, in effect, exactly a prayer. It is our attempt to do so that they find offensive. In other words, it is our behavior and lack of respect. BUT WE DON'T MAKE ANY SUCH ATTEMPT! You apparently are having some difficulty in understanding this point, voldagon. So let me emphasize it to help you see the fallacy in this argument: We Latter-day Saints make no attempt whatsoever to "make" Jews into Mormons. Is that sufficiently clear now? Do you now understand this most basic point, the crux of the whole argument? Latter-day Saints don't make any attempt whatsoever to change Jews into Mormons. Period. We only provide Jews the opportunity for salvation, if they wish to seize it. Can this point be made any clearer? Seeing as how this is current Church policy, I could not agree more. We've answered, you've stuck your fingers in your ears. Not so, voldagon. I have listened most intently, reading every word you have written in this thread. You keep pursuing a false notion, a lie that you refuse to identify as a lie. You keep claiming that the Jews don't like how we keep trying to make their ancestors Mormon, when you know full well that we do no such thing. It appears I, too, understand both sides of the picture. The difference is, I'm willing to be honest and call a spade a spade. No, they don't like our religious rites when applied arbitrarily towards their own ancestors. What do you mean, "their ancestors"? We don't dig anyone up. We have ink on paper, and we speak words that includes the (often badly butchered) pronunciation of words. This can have no bearing in any possible sense on their ancestors. Unless, of course, we speak by the authority of God. But otherwise, our ordinances never touch their ancestors to any possible degree whatsoever. Why? Because I have refused to accede to the nonsensical lie that we "make their ancestors Mormon", or that we are trying to do so? On the contrary, I understand their feelings. But feelings are not the end-all and be-all of existence. At some point, reason and rationality have to make an entrance, as well. We live in a pluralistic society where other religions are allowed and tolerated. The Jews, as much as or more than any other religious group on earth, should understand this point. What we have in the Jewish complaint against LDS temple ordinances is unmitigated religious bigotry. It is you, not I, that refuses to see the situation as it is.

Did you see my response to your trig questions? (Sorry, messaging isn't working for me.)

Baloney. The religious rites are ours, not theirs. We get to define what they mean, not the Jews. The fact that certain Jews choose to attach meaning to our religious rites which we don't attach to those beliefs shows them to be bigots. It would be as if we took offense that the Jews don't eat pork, assigning some malicious meaning or intent to that Jewish law. Absurd. How can I possibly "impose" anything on a dead person? The very idea is utterly ridiculous. Then that's a stupid way to view things. I might take umbrage at Jews wearing yarmulkes, interpreting it as a total lack of respect for me. But guess what? It isn't. The fact that I interpret it as such is of no moment whatsoever, except that it would expose me as a neurotic ninny. Same thing with baptisms for the dead. Means nothing. This is the point, voldagon: The Jews don't get to decide whether my intentions or thoughts are kindly. And as I have said many times before, even if we were making voodoo dolls of their ancestors and poking them with pins -- so what? But the fact is, we are not. In our own minds, we are performing rites of deep and sacred significance which we believe offers a hope of salvation to them. In their minds, we are praying over a list of names. Whatever. In neither case is there any hint of disrespect. The disrespect exists only in the minds of the Jews who take offense, and only because of sheer religious bigotry. There is not a single reasonable point to be debated that suggests the LDS temple rites are any sort of "forced conversion". That is sheer, pure, unmitigated stupidity, and anyone who clings to that thinking is either stupid or lying. In neither case are we obligated, by law or by ethics, to change our beliefs or how we pursue those beliefs.

What I see baptisms for the dead as accomplishing is irrelevant. Then that is purely stupid. No other word for it. And we are under no obligation to kowtow to sheer, unmitigated stupidity. Do the Jews believe we have the power to "make" their ancestors Mormon against their will? I don't believe you will find a single Jew who would admit to believing such. So what's their beef? We can't make their ancestors non-Jewish (in their minds), or cannot do so against their ancestors' wishes (in our minds), so what exactly is the problem? The problem is this: They don't like our religious rites. Period. And that is bigotry.

You say you cannot pass judgment on the young woman because you don't know the specifics of her situation. By the same token, you do not know the nature of their relationship or breakup. My brother was treated abominably by a former wife and falsely accused of unspeakable actions against their daughter, which was only disallowed when the woman admitted under examination that she fabricated the charges. In such a situation, seemingly extreme overreactions such as the above suddenly don't seem quite as extreme. You do not know how badly mistreated this man may have been by his ex-girlfriend or what exactly precipitated his billboard action. If you knew the whole situation, you just might be inclined to cut him significantly more slack. (Btw, my brother did nothing to "get back at" his then-wife for her vicious slander. Not even billboards.)

On the contrary, I have grasped the situation just fine. I simply refuse to accept the babbling that passes for reasoning on the issue. That it might "strike a raw nerve" is of no moment. It's a religious rite, nothing more. We aren't digging up Jews. We aren't forcing conversion at the point of a sword. We aren't forcing anyone to acknowledge the superiority of anything. We are saying prayers. If they don't like how we say prayers, then that's really not our fault, is it? Answer me this, volgadon: How can saying prayers over names on a sheet of paper affect those Holocaust victims? Same question: How can saying prayers over names on a sheet of paper cut any Jews, living or dead, off from their people? How would they react, or how should they react? They should react exactly as I would react when my Catholic friends tell me they have lit a votive candle and prayed for the soul of my deceased father: With gratitude for their kind thought, however silly or superstitious their religious rite might seem to me.

I can only assume it must be easier to take photographs of various body parts when said parts are lying on the ground in front of you. Assuming you still have fingers to work the camera. The list of things of which I am guilty would exceed readable length. And I don't live with myself, you sicko. I live with my wife.

Lead, Kindly Light, amid th’encircling gloom. Lead Thou me on! The night is dark, and I am far from home; lead Thou me on! Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me. I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou shouldst lead me on. I loved to choose and see my path; but now, lead Thou me on! I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears, Pride ruled my will. Remember not past years! So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still will lead me on O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone, And with the morn those angel faces smile, Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!

How is it defamation if abortion is legal? It's like accusing someone of being homosexual. Can you sue for defamation for such a claim? The fact he didn't name the woman involved also seems to have bearing on this. I assume you're engaging in hyperbole. Given that he's not the one who killed the baby, I think it would be more approriate to "fix" the woman involved. But I agree, it was ungallant on his part to expose her to open shame. He should be held morally responsible for his actions. But he is a product of his society, and it is a sick, twisted, perverted society, so we shouldn't be surprised at this as a result. Singling him out for "castration", literal or otherwise, misses the root of the problem. I daresay if ungallant actions were castration-worthy, the human race would cease to exist in a generation.

For shame, PC. And a man of the cloth!

I am hurt. Deeply hurt. Look into those limpid eyes of my avatar and tell me that I'm a heartless killing machine of inefficient and flawed design, easily tripped up by nothing more than rope or loose logs. <blink> <blink>

You have not been paying attention, LM. Listen up. GB-UK, Chouchou, and LDSJewess have made it clear that it's your own filthy mind that equates Hooters owls with breasts. What, you think the Hooters people INTENTIONALLY made their owls' eyes to look like breasts, with the irises in the position of <insert favorite euphemism for areloa, a word far too sexually charged to say openly>? Ridiculous. It's your own perverted imagination. Shame on you, LM!

I confess, I'm a troll racist.

John, your build and situation are very much like mine, except I'm up over 200 pounds. Can you give me more details on your diet?

The link clearly states that the Church takes no position on the matter.