selek

Glad I'm not the only one who went there...

One other thought: yes, what you're dealing with is counterproductive and potentially unhealthy- but its also perfectly natural. We are all of us works-in-progress. Strive to be better than you are, but don't beat yourself up because you're not perfect (yet).

I am neither agitated nor offended. (Nor am I particularly subtle- when I'm upset, you'll know it I am genuinely trying to understand what you would have us say or do differently than we have done.

I never claimed that I was. As a faithful Mormon, I don't believe in reincarnation. You know, for as much as you whinge about personal attacks, your last couple of posts have implied that I am arrogant, clueless, uneducated, and dishonest (not to mention a bully)......but still haven't addressed my actual arguments. It's also not an argument I have ever made. Go figure.The closest I have come to this particular caricaturewas pointing out the double standard on abortion from a couple of pages back- but even abortion is not a clearly "conservative" or "liberal" issue. More personal attacks? Tell you what: instead of the name-calling, why don't you address my actual arguments?Iinstead of the passive-aggressive shtick, why not address what I said in lieu of beating up on strawmen? Wow. So much condescension and prejudice- so little attempt to address the substance of my arguments.

That's three in a row now who don't want to address the substance of my argument, but would rather whinge about how "mean" I am and how I say "hard things" to them- exactly the behavior I referenced with the scripture I cited. Laman and Lemuel didn't want to deal with the eternal principles and law that Nephi was addressing- so they instead whined that he was being mean to them. You, MoE, and Wingnut are all doing the same dance- but the rain just isn't coming. NONE of you has shown where my arguments are doctrinally or scripturally incorrect. My posts have been limited to addressing the arguments made in this thread, and to examining how those arguments have been applied. But rather than addressing those points- and the eternal truths being explored- you'd much rather pretend that you are somehow being victimized.

I referenced scripture citing an eternal principle and called into question MoE's argument and conduct.But I'm quite certain he appreciates your support in trying to distract from the principle by buying into the pretense of victimhood. In point of fact, neither you nor MoE HAVE addressed the substance of my arguments. Laman and Lemuel didn't particularly like it when Nephi spoke eternal truths to them, either. I get that you don't like the idea that some one might be judged for their political views- but that doesn't make it wrong.

Ironically, Phear was given logical, coherent, and substantive answers to the questions- and you're still not happy. So what, in your mind, should "a conversation about those issues" look like? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that these questions are agenda driven and demagogic in nature? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that this particular list of greivances and talking points was compiled specificaaly to attack and undermine the testimony of the faithful? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that these questions have already been answered multiple times or that even a cursory examination of the available materials will reveal the bias, tendentiousness, double standards, and false premises which underlie the litany of complaints? Are we supposed to reinvent the wheel for every poster who demands that we as Saints and apologists line up and bark on command? Clear, consise, and factual answers- with citations- were offered to Phear in good faith and with the intent to answer his/her concerns. So what more would you have us do?

1 Nephi 16:2-3 For all your personal indignation about the idea of someone being judged for their political views, you've yet to provide any evidence indicating that such an approach is intrinsically incorrect or fundamentally wrong. Despite your insistence on assuming the mantle of victimhood on this topic, you've yet to address the fundamental doctrinal truths which support such an approach. Rather than addressing the substance of the arguments being offered, you're tryng to spin them as personal attacks. That IS deflection- something you've claimed to resent.

I disagree. Each one of the points raised by Phear's interlocutor is simply a rehashed, pre-digested talking point designed by anti-Mormon and counter-cult ministries to put members on the spot.They are tired, trite, and wholly unoriginal- as evidenced by the fact that numerous sources already exist specifically to answer the charges and allegations made. (Links were provided above). When it comes to that sort of anti-Mormon nonsense, there really is nothing new under the sun. Since we're in the "just an observation" mode, I observe that you conveniently overlooked posts #2, #3,#5, and #6 which provided specific answers.THAT is how we "would answer those challenges."

ChristyML, The type of resentment you are engaging in is both self-defeating and not-Christ-like. It's like drinking poison in the hopes that your sister-in-law will die. As you have already noted- it is corrosive to your happiness, and has not the slightest effect on her. To answer your question: "Where is God? Why is He letting her be happy when all she has done to me is make me feel like garbage?" God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike. He also allows the wicked to ripen fully in their iniquity before calling them to task. God's justice WILL be done- sooner or later. This may be one of your particular trials (at least in the short term). The Lord has said, "I will forgive whom I will forgive. But I require of you to forgive ALL men." That means you have to forgive even your sister-in-law (in my case, the trial is my father-in-law, so I can relate). How can the Lord extend forgiveness and mercy unto you when you refuse to extend it to her? You need to review 3 Nephi 14-15 (also Matthew 6: 14-15) and ponder these things in your heart. Let's put it another way: suppose tomorrow that God decided to indulge your wish for retribution (be honest- you want vengeance, not justice) and strikes her down with boils, frogs, locusts, and IRS agents. Other than your pleasure in her suffering, what will that accomplish? No eternal truths have changed. No eternal principles will have been reaffirmed. Consider that for a moment- and then ask yourself what sort of person takes pleasure in another person's suffering? Do you really want to be that sort of person? I have a lot of issues with this statement, not the least of which is the sheer hubris and ego involved.Do you realize how arrogant it is to assume that God- our Heavenly Father, creator, ruler, regulator, and magistrate of the entire freakin' universe- is taking time away from his busy schedule just to mess with you? I'm pretty sure I don't rate that high on God's to-do list. And I'm pretty sure you don't either. Honest answer? Find someone to serve. Volunteer at the Bishop's storehouse, help out at the local soup kitchen, go down and help sort clothes for the Salvation Army (or the local DI). Do something productive and selfless for someone else in need. And stop letting your sister-in-law live rent-free in your head.

The bottom line is that we, as Saints, are commanded to be good and faithful stewards of the talents and rights given to us by God, and to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves". We are told repeatedly throughout the Scriptures that we will be held accountable not only for what talents we are given- but also for what outcomes we generate with those same talents. That includes being informed and prudent voters. If we choose elected representatives and other leaders who proclaim Godly principles and then betray our trust, the sin is theirs. If, on the other hand, we choose elected leaders and public policies which directly contradict Godly principles and divine law- or who have demonstrated a tendency towards such behavior in the past- the sin is on our heads, because we should have known better. The old axion, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" definitely applies. I find it deeply interesting that the usual suspects who were so quick to suggest that we might have blood on our hands for supporting "unjust wars" were equally quick to object to the idea that they might be held accountable for supporting policies which have spilled the blood of FIFTY-FIVE MILLION innocent children. Despite the "I don't want to argue whether abortion is wrong" mea culpa, the attempted moral equivalency argument was neither particularly subtle nor particularly honest. In that regard, it was of a piece with the "how dare you presume that my support for godless policies might somehow reflect on my dedication to the Gospel!" rant. We are told throughout Scriptures that we can- and should- judge prophets by the fruits they produce. Why should politicians- and those who support them- be judged any differently?

Yeah- surprised me, too.

Horse feathers.Cardinal Bergoglio has a reputation and a record for doctrinal conservatism and for shutting down the attempted politicization and "liberalization" of the priesthood. Hardly the man you'd expect to usher in a new era of progressivism and the "dumbing down" of core Catholic doctrine. If the Church really wanted to convey a message of progressivism and sensitivity to "modern" sensibilities, they wouldn't have elected either Ratzenberger OR Bergoglio. Both men are known for their hardline stance on doctrine, not their eagerness to appease the pomp of Babylon. Indeed we will- but I expect the real problems will lie in reforming the bureaucracy rather than in revising the faith in order to accomodate moral relatavism. The speculation lies in your wild guess that that issue- and the PR surrounding it- was the driving force for Beroglio's election as Pope.No one has diminished or dismissed the seriousness of the child abuse issue- only your unfounded assumption that it was high on the list of the Cardinal's priorities. In point of fact, scholars, theologians, and analysts who've studied and dealt with the Catholic Church for years- have discussed Bergoglio's strengths and weaknesses at length. And none of them have ascribed to your assumptions, theories, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Actually, the Church already HAS taken solid and concrete steps to deal with the issue and protect children (and the Church) from predatory priests.Serious reforms HAVE been made and serious lessons HAVE been learned. On the contary, the idea that child abuse is endemic or rampant within the Church IS a stereotype- a favorite whipping post for those who wish to flog the Church into submission, and bully them into aquiesence.Those who abused children within the Church- or who looked the other way in order to shield them from justice- has never been more than a tiny minority. Yes- even a single instance of child abuse is a tragedy- and the late coverup was unforgivable. But to tar the entire Church and all Catholic priests as complicit or potential abusers is to engage in bigoted stereotypes. You would be far more honest by saying "continue to bring about changes"- but that would mean acknowledging that the stereotype no longer fits.

As a matter of personal preference, I would try to avoid this kind of speculation primarily because it relies primarily on anti-Catholic stereotypes and popular prejudice rather than facts.In a factual sense, however, Cardinal Bergoglio has been targeted by the usual suspects over "human rights" issues in the past. "Another measure of Bergoglio's seriousness as a candidate was the negative campaigning that swirled around him eight years ago. Three days before the 2005 conclave, a human rights lawyer in Argentina filed a complaint charging Bergoglio with complicity in the 1976 kidnapping of two liberal Jesuit priests under the country's military regime, a charge Bergoglio flatly denied. There was also an e-mail campaign, claiming to originate with fellow Jesuits who knew Bergoglio when he was the provincial of the order in Argentina, asserting that 'he never smiled.'" "Bergoglio is seen an unwaveringly orthodox on matters of sexual morality, staunchly opposing abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception. In 2010 he asserted that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children, earning a public rebuke from Argentina's President, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Nevertheless, he has shown deep compassion for the victims of HIV-AIDS; in 2001, he visited a hospice to kiss and wash the feet of 12 AIDS patients." Profile: New pope, Jesuit Bergoglio, was runner-up in 2005 conclave | National Catholic Reporter If- as you suppose- the Conclave were swayed by the PR aspects of the child abuse scandal, then surely they would have selected someone who hadn't gone out of his way to antagonize the pro-homophile movement.

Hmmm.... I wonder if (having gotten roundly, soundly, and devastatingly horse-whipped in the recent plebescite) the Argentinian government will try to parlay the election of Pope Francis I into some sort of sanction for their saber rattling over the Falklands.

Amen, and amen. LDS or not, another capable, pious, Godly voice cannot be any but a good thing in a fallen world.

Venezuela | Freedom House Venezuela - Committee to Protect Journalists Freedom of expression "under attack" in Venezuela | Radio Netherlands Worldwide Press freedom under attack in Venezuela - National South America Headlines | Examiner.com Venezuelan judge is jailed after ruling angers President Hugo ChávezVenezuela's Chavez Tightens Grip On Judiciary : NPR But you weren't "plugging a gap"- you were offering an opinion- and by your own admission, you didn't even bother to make it an informed opinion. In the post to which I responded, you stated that the negative opinions and criticisms were limited to "a few Americans" on this board- insinuating that criticism of Chavez is some sort of latent Americano-centrism or moldy American imperialism. You attempted to dismiss Chavez' critics as a small, isolated, and marginal group- without providing any justification for that dismissal. By your own admission, that opinion was not fueled by any genuine knowledge of Chavez, his history, or tactics. So what else is left? Nor did I particularly care for the implication YOU were making.Funny, isn't it, how sour people get when their own tactics are turned against them? Pam has asked me to tone down some of the divisive rhetoric. In the absence of specific knowledge, I can only assume that this was a blanket request rather than a finger on only one side of the scale. I was responding specifically to the "hit parade" of sneering innuendo coming from those who want to lionize Chavez and demonize his critics without providing any sort of substance to back up their presumption of moral superiority. If some of you took that as attacks on your persons rather than your ideology, I apologize. In any case, this will be my final post of the topic. I am invoking Hamblin's rule #1 and walking away. The bottom line is this: those critical of Chavez have provided specific examples of his misdeeds, his excesses, and his abuses. Those wishing to lionize him have offered us only class warfare rhetoric and the usual mantras about the beauty and purity of his ideals. I know this will leave a bitter taste in many of your mouths, but "purity of vision" and fantasies of "idyllic workers paradises" don't fill bellies, they don't protect people's rights, and they don't change facts. Playing to the prejudices of self-loathing Americans doesn't find people jobs, it doesn't protect against jailing people for their political views, and it doesn't guarantee the rule of law. Chavez was a monster- no matter how much you loved his beatific propaganda.

But RB, his ideology was pure!We can't hold those of the proper ideology responsible for anything so silly as mere outcomes... It is their intentions that matter- and the purity of Chavez and Guevara's vision far supercedes anything so trivial as mere human morality, compassion, or basic decency.

This is false on two fronts. First, "even the devil can quote scripture to his advantage." Just because something was recorded by an LDS source does NOT mean that the argument is being made in good faith. Anti-Mormons and other "counter-cultists" have made a cottage industry out of manipulating quotes and sources from the targets of their ire. (As a Catholic, you should be well aware of this tactic being used by anti-Catholics over the last two centuries). This, of course, leads us to the second point: you are (either deliberately or because you were misinformed) abusing Brigham Young's statement. He neither said nor implied that any of his sermons was automagically doctrine as the words fell from his lips. The quote used to justify that line of logic was his alleged statement, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." Critics of the Church love to abuse that statement (usually for polemical value or to advance false arguments), but they all too often omit the second part, which read: "Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve." (Emphasis mine). Note the qualifying statement: before Brigham's words could be considered authoritative, he required "the privilege of correcting a sermon"- meaning the opportunity to double check it against- and revise it as necessary- to match extant doctrine, the Gospel, and Church law. Mormonism and doctrine/Statements by past prophets - FAIRMormon As others have noted above (and provided solid links for additional reading) both the "Adam-God sermon" and the Journal of Discourses fails this test- and fail it badly. The Journal of Discourses was not- and never has been- an authoritative source of Church doctrine. It was published in England of all places, and was neither reviewed nor corrected by the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve before publication. Brigham Young did not have "the privilege of correcting [those sermons]"- and they are not, therefore, "scripture" even under the somewhat eccentric definition being used. Yes- but once one has ALL the pieces, then the puzzle takes on a starkly different picture than the glossy one offered by counter-cult ministries and by people with an axe to grind.In this instance, you hit on a particularly classic- and egregious- example of how those who do not argue in good faith will distort the truth in order to misrepresent and demonize our faith. Thank you for not swallowing the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Call For References, please. You keep throwing out this charge like some sacred mantra- a catechism with which you can rebuke the demons of rationale thought. But there is no weight of evidence or authority behind it. We have provided specific, concrete examples of Chavez's abuse of power, rank corruption, graft, greed, and avarice. All you have offered in turn are stereotypes. Why is that, I wonder...

Yeah- it's amazing the "mixed messages" you can generate when you close, burn, and destroy presses that criticize you, disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you, jail anyone who speaks out against you, and torture, rape and murder the families of anyone who dares criticize you... It's amazing what you can get away with when you arbitrarily dismiss judges who try to limit your power to that defined by law, and when that fails, arbitrarily redefine the Constitution to suit your whim, all backed up by a jack-booted personal guard loyal to you personally, rather than to the nation as a whole. Then perhaps- given your admitted ignorance- you should adhere to the old axiom "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."By your own admission, you are woefully unprepared to opine about Chavez- but that didn't stop you from posting a couple of baseless digs at the "small group of Americans" on this board. Unlike you, we know why this man was a threat, a tyrant, and a monster. Unlike you, our opinions are informed by something other than ill-formed opinions and prejudices about "those ugly Americans".

Yep. Right next to the Che Guevarra icons. No matter that both men were steeped in blood to their elbows- their ideology was pure- and so you give them a pass. But didn't a great man (at least in your pantheon of saints) once say, "You can't make omelettes without breaking a few eggs"?

Ewwww...... "Mom! Teddy ripped a seam and now Uncle Barney's spilling all over the floor!"

Mmm...when nine hundred years old YOU reach... ...look as good, you will not.

In Post #50 (above), you said: Your words, Anne. Your admission. That he is engaged in the same sort of risky behavior was Rameumptom's observation, yes.Allison's husband is deliberately and willfully violating the law for the thrill and for the "street cred". He is deliberately damaging and destroying other people's property- and risking his family's safety, welfare, and his own good name- to feed his vanity and his pride. I am always open to being corrected by those who have the means and the wisdom to do so. But I have a real problem with people who try to put their thumbs on the scale and then tell me 14 ounces is a full pound. All that having been said, skippy is right. This horse has been beaten well past rigor mortus. Unless something new or interesting comes up, it's time to let it marinate in its own sauce. Anybody want to join me for a meal at Burger King?