Saintmichaeldefendthem1

One thing I've learned well is that there is no sin so terrible, so foetid in the eyes of God, that it cannot be rationalized and made to be morally inconsequential. Yes, on top of all I said, I agree with Selek that doing this is a sin and for that reason alone should be reconsidered.

Of everything I said, that's the only thing you seized upon. My beginning paragraph describes you succinctly.

I'm sorry. I don't see how this was not at his direction. I think in terms of what fits more logically and what is more of a stretch. I have a cop's intuition for finding the truth because truth has a way of making itself known because the lies told to conceal it only serve to throw it into sharp relief for those who have an eye for it. Truth is not coherced. It fits naturally and doesn't need to be forced into place. Like a rubber band, it retains its correct shape when it isn't stretched. Every one of my posts has been designed to shed light on the more plausible explanation, that the teacher was well aware of what was going on and encouraged it. It disturbs me that so many are willing to cling to an explanation that defies logic and doesn't fit naturally; that the teacher may have read a magazine or just stepped out of the room for a moment and (whoops!) the kids took that as an opportunity to fling off their clothes and perform sex acts on each other. Why is it that so many are unwilling to see the obvious? It might be because most teachers are wonderful, committed, and caring human beings who can be trusted with our children and we don't want to believe one of them would do something like this. It might be a number of reasons. It's a foible of human nature to shape our vision of the truth according to host of pre-existing biases, experiences, beliefs, blindnesses, and over all world views. It takes discipline to commit oneself to the truth, wherever that may lead them, and discard the most cherished of beliefs when they fail to measure up to the iron standard. That's what I'm trying to get people here to do. It means gravitating to what is probable, rather than what we'd like to believe.

Now there's some claims out there that this speech was one tantamount to plagiarism. Many of the phrases have been pasted from other great speeches such as from Reagan or JFK. There was also a lame attempt to imitate Reaganesque speeches on American exceptionalism. Obama's "glimpse into the future" is nothing more than sad rhetoric that masks itself as being drawn from America's greatness. But coming from a man who believes America is racist, homophobic, prolific in injustices all over the world, and a promoter of an ever widening gap between the evil rich and the oppressed poor...his words ring hallow. As Saldrin said, he doesn't really believe what he's saying.

It's hard to know how to address this question because so much offense is tied to it. First there is the offense that gender mutilation renders to the Creator who made us male and female, and then those who undergo the operation bandy it about like a chip on their shoulder so quick to be offended by anyone who doesn't accept their new "gender". If you underwent the operation I could not refer to you as a woman, nor could I use female pronouns when talking about you. My religious belief precludes this possibility and speaking of rights mine to practice my beliefs is spelled out in the constitution, yours to not be offended is not. I would not be mean about it, and far from goading you, I would seek every opportunity to avoid you and the minefield you would have laid out for me. Many would also feel as I do. Is this what you want? The operation would not make you a woman, it would only mutilate you. Our gender is imprinted in us down to the very cellular level. Our chromozones are distinct and are never a mistake. Spiritually we are also made male and female and our physical complimentarity to the female is matched by our spiritual. The man and the woman complete each other in every way. It's not an oversight or mistake that you were made a man, it was God's design. The Mormons believe that your spirit existed long before it was issued from heaven so you could be born. What this means to you if you are Mormon is that God's plan and design for you, including your gender, has vastly predated your few years on this earth. I think the feelings of wanting to be a woman are a mental disorder and can be corrected. I rejoice in having been born a boy and I enjoy my masculinity. Women are indeed beautiful and have many traits to be admired, but the same goes for us men. The ultimate endeavor of humanity is to see the beautiful in both genders, as Michelangelo the artist did. It can be learned. You can come to love your masculinity and many men like you have experienced freedom in Christ; freedom to be the men and women God has meant us to be. I post this not to offend you, but I also cannot pull punches in fear of offending you. I need to shoot straight with you, man to man. This isn't the right path and will not bring you happiness. If you cannot find happiness with what God has given you already, then no operation will change that. I hope and pray that you consider other options. In the Sacred Heart of Christ.

Yes. I read that book when I was serving in Fort Bragg. It's a great story and I'm not usually the sappy type that goes for love stories. I love Baba Yaga's demise in the end.

Just a small correction. Republicans lost Congress in 2006. What happened was that Republicans voted for TARP even though their constituents were screaming for them not to. Several of those RINOs have since been thrown out of office and the 2nd vote for a further bailout received continental opposition from Republicans.

An interesting dynamic with Canadians. Many like Obama because they view him as a global thinker. But many are concerned about Obamacare because the better medical care in the United States that shores up the weaknesses in Canadian socialized care is now in jeopardy. If they can't go to the United States for care they can't receive in Canada, where will they go? Where will anyone go? I didn't bother watching, mostly because I'm a truck driver and I can't, but I won't even bother to watch the youtubes. I would be interested to know how many Supreme Court justices decided to sit this one out after Obama's atrocious behavior last year. There was rumor that at least 2 of them would not attend. Whether Obama realizes it or not, he's now a lame duck president and the squawking of a dying animal just breaks my heart.

I haven't read that one yet. Right now I'm reading the First Meetings book from the Ender Wiggin series, in a sense trying to catch up. Can you tell me about it?

Yes, out of all of Card's works, the Ender Wiggin series will always be my favorite. Card is a master at character development. I love Sister Carlotta, a Catholic nun who becomes the mentor for Bean. Card is obviously a great admirer of the Catholic Church. I'm also fond of Petra who remains haunted by her failure while fighting the buggers but makes up for it by helping to bring down a new threat to humanity. I could go on and on...

Wow! I'm more than a little delighted at these responses. I'm in good company. Nobody yet has said they read Lost Boys. I would heartily recommend this book. It's very sad, but also very inspiring. Step Fletcher is a software writer for computer games in the 1980's and he moves his family to Steuben because of a new job. He has a lovely wife and three, soon to be four kids. Mormons. The antics of a certain woman in the local church ward adds some hilarious comic relief. She fancies herself a prophetess and she spins her little webs, intimidates the bishop until she gets her way on things, and generally tests the patience of other church members. The story isn't how she makes Mormons look bad. The story is how tolerant Mormons are for not publically stoning her. Another character is a teacher that shouldn't be a teacher. Each year, she will select one student to be the recipient of her most vicious abuse. This year, she chose the wrong child, one whose parents would end her reign of terror for good. Yet another character is a young man who takes all too rapidly to certain aspects of the LDS church, particularly the notion that Mormons are the only people who understand his potential godhood. He means no harm and he's a nice enough person, when medicated. Card presents a normal, down to earth, Mormon family, a church ward that is full of wonderful people..and a few nuts mixed in, and a dysfunctional new workplace for Step, all as a backdrop for a more chilling narrative. Little boys in Steuben are disappearing without explanation, and parents are terrified their child will be next!

Oh, I'm sure he's being interviewed and made to explain his actions. I can't believe so many are willing to believe that 2nd graders spontaneously get naked and perform these acts without adult direction. When I was in 2nd grade paste was good to eat, girls had cooties and were not to be touched, and getting naked was something I did at home before taking a bath. I don't think kids have really changed all that much since then.

I figured since he's another high profile Mormon, there might be some here who love his books as much as I do. Orson Scott Card is a science fiction and fantasy writer with a special affinity for world history. His claim to fame was the Hugo and Nebula award winning Ender's Game which has now become a whole series of books. The Alvin Maker series is staged on an alternate history of the United States. It features a gifted boy who can heal and even bring life to unliving objects. He becomes a man destined to build the Crystal City. The Homecoming series is the stories of the Book of Mormon played out in a futuristic setting. Saints is about an English immigrant to America who sets out with Joseph Smith's followers and becomes the first sister wife of the famed prophet. Lost Boys Is a book about a Mormon family in Steuben, NC who find themselves right in the middle of a community frightened by the mysterious disappearance of 6 little boys. So many wonderful books that I've read ever since I was a boy, and he still is a wildly popular author today. Am I the only drooling fan here?

I think that wanting to be fair and not jumping to conclusions, even conclusions that are inevitable, would fly right out the window if it were your child in that class. I know I would pull mine immediately based on just the facts at hand.

Exactly. Where could the teacher be in the classroom where two children engaging in sex acts would escape his attention. One anomoly I can understand, two is a pattern. Children stripped naked and then in a separate incident children performed sex acts on each other. C'mon, people, use your heads!

Does it matter? Would you keep your child in that class if there was only partial nudity as opposed to full? That's my point. Every conclusion that can be drawn here is bad.

Most schools still haven't caught up with the 21st century yet and so there will likely be no footage. I am, however, disturbed that video and audio footage is now supplanting eyewitness testamony as a credible source. It used to be in court that a police officer's testamony was believed because police are subject to the highest standards in honesty and society places a certain amount of trust in their word. Now defense attorneys are demanding dash-cams and audio recordings and suggesting that the lack thereof to supplement the officer's report represents an insufficiency of evidence. Cameras can be defeated, and if the teacher's conduct was indeed reproachable, you can bet there's no footage of it.

I'm glad you understand my conclusion is probable, that would make you the first. The party line from the school admin that this was just spontaneous childish curiosity is of course improbable. 2nd graders don't strip down in class and perform sex acts because they're curious. But in regard to your first point, I would reason that I'm the only one here (and now you) who's actually considering the facts that ARE in evidence.

Are you now not being uncharitable and carrying over frustration from a different thread? What I said there doesn't apply to this situation. The claim is being made over and over that we don't have the facts when in fact we have several facts that point to something being sorely amiss in that classroom and the teacher, one way or another, being responsible. To those so ready to take up his defense, would you not immediately pull your own children from that class even with only the facts at hand?

It's clear this discuss is now causing offense. I digress.

I can appreciate the distinction you're drawing here. I think that general advice is generally ignored, but advice that is embedded in a distinct culture, such as the LDS, is far more effective. Mormons live a life of preparation because that's what their faith teaches. Though I'm not Mormon, I took steps to be better prepared because Glenn Beck suggested so, demonstrating my greater faith in Glenn Beck than in our government.

Actually, what I'm saying isn't that supporting data must be out there somewhere because I don't care. As I said, much of the compilation of this data done by your adversaries I'm not interested in because I'm not your adversary. I'm drawing logical and natural effects of polygamy and the resulting injustice on a segregated community. The gender ratio at birth is nearly 1:1, with slightly more boys born than girls. The theory you proposed to create a greater gender imbalance among adults, that there was a greater influx of female converts, I cannot take at face value because of a lack of supporting precident that females convert to a new religion at a faster rate than males. Because males and females are so closely intertwined through family and marital connections, it's difficult to sustain such an imbalance. Put more simply, there won't be an instance of many females converting and trekking off without a proportionate number of males following. And perhaps the larger point as to why I resist citing bodies of data is that I find greater truth in what is probable than in data which is compiled; often to confound the probable and work toward less than truthful human agendas.

It's easy to chalk up any criticism of the early LDS to persecution, and doing this to a fault only serves to blind the LDS to their own faults. Are their no criticisms that are warranted? Or is everything just explained away? I'm a rational, logical, and well educated person who believes that truth naturally rises to the surface. I don't have to read any actual accounts of these injustices perpetuated by the practice of polygamy because polygamy will intrinsically cause mating imbalances that result in injustice. Give me some credit here, I don't spend my valuable time studying biased articles and books devised to tear down the LDS faith because I have no animosity toward your faith. I'm after the truth.

I think this is the more plausable explanation rather than, "I didn't see it when several students got naked, and then I didn't see it again when 2 students started committing falatio on each other." Given the facts we DO have, I don't think the most logical conclusions are being reached. I think a lot of you are believing the narrative rather than what's more probable.

How often do you think it's acceptable for a teacher to allow kids to get naked and have sex in class? How believable is it that the teacher was completely clueless as to what was going on? How much more likely is it that the teacher was encouraging this activity? 2nd graders are well aware of the taboo of nakedness in public and under normal circumstances would be terrified of being found unclad in school. It took some serious adult driven conditioning to get the kids to overcome this fear. Don't get sucked in by the school officials' narrative. Be smarter than that.