selek

Of course not.Any one and everyone has the privilege of disagreeing with me. They must simply be prepared to vigorously defend their error. I quite agree.Note, however, that in Anne's case it was she- not I- who was attempting to discredit and dismiss the opinion of another (while offering no rationale basis upon which to do so). You can hardly criticize me for engaging a dissenting opinion while simultaneously ignoring someone trying to arbitrarily dismiss such an opinion. To my simple mind, the market place of ideas is (ideally) a Darwinian environment in which ideas survive or fail on their merits, not on how popular they are, nor upon their political correctness, nor upon whose sheltering hand has been extended over the particular orthodoxy. I have been careful to address the quality of arguments, rather than of people, in the pursuit of wisdom and clarity. That strikes me as a wholly legitimate pursuit. If I have failed in that regard, I apologize- and await the correction of my "betters".

But you DIDN'T use "common sense and logic"- you went "all in" with no cards in your hand. By your own admission, "<you> don't know any taggers". As both Ram and I pointed out you dismissed his experience based solely on your own ignorance- and when it was pointed out that you missed the point, you doubled down on that ignorance. "Common sense" and "logic" must be grounded in reality. Your dismissal of Rameumptom's observations had no such foundation- only your own assumption and presumption. We've already established that Allison's husband is risking a felony level conviction for vandalism. Likely consequences of this behavior that have been mentioned: preventing him from securing good employment with which to provide for his family.burden his family with court costs, legal fees, and other crushing debts (especially those incurred in restoration and repair).endangering his academic standing (which further degrades his prospects for good employment.may lead to his incarceration.if he crosses the wrong turf lines, may result in serious injury or even death.there are other, unforeseen consequences that may stretch into the future: felony convictions may further harm his ability to vote, to possess a firearm, and participate in a lot of public and private service programs.Allison's husband is risking all of these things for the "thrill of the chase" and for the praise and adoration of his fellow taggers.(Can you think of a better definition of the phrase "lusting after the pomp of Babylon"?) These are risky behaviors- the very same risky behaviors which Rameumptom has observed in the prison population. As has already been stated twice before, Rameumpton was not referring to taggers, but to the set of behaviors being demonstrated. The pattern is there. It cannot be dismissed simply because one wants to elevate "taggers" to a special breed whose crimes can be overlooked because they're "artsy". Thank you for the admission.Others here, however, have been agitating for an "but it's art, so the rules don't apply" approach. Except when you try to dismiss opinions you don't like out of hand.When you cast a spray of handwavium-238 over the conversation with your airy-and erroneous- dismissal of Rameumptom's point, you made it very much a matter of the proper credentials. Reality trumps fantasy every time it's tried (with the possible exception of the Federal budget). When you plead "common sense" and "logic" as the basis for your pontifications, your assumptions and presumptions become fair game.

As was my intention......so how come you didn't?

There are two things that came out of your statement that are worth noting.The first is the tacit admission that you define "criminal" based on whose ox is being gored. If they tag YOUR stuff, it's a crime. If they tag SOMEONE ELSE'S stuff, it's "art". The second thing is that despite your own admission that you "dont know any taggers except the jerks who painted up our backyard shed", you are willing to gainsay someone who actually works in the field. Never, ever let it said that you will allow your opinion to be muddled by anything so pernicious as someone who knows what they're talking about. You are trying to argue that alison's husband is different because the prison population got caught. Caught or not is irrelevant (and only a matter of time). The man is still knowingly breaking the law. Moreover, you missed Rameumptom's point: he was not comparing one set of taggers with another, he was comparing one set of behaviors with one that he sees every day. Allison's husband is committing crimes for the thrill of it. Whether he gets his jollies from "tagging", breaking windows, shooting out car tires, or arson- the increasing need for an adrenalin "fix" is going to lead this man into legal trouble sooner, rather than later.

Alison, you need to do two things right off the bat: 1) Talk to your Bishop. 2) Talk to a lawyer. Both can provide you with good direction, wise counsel, and with the resources you need to safeguard your family. Yes, the cracks you got here were a little harsher than they might have needed to be- but both you and your husband need to realize that this is not a game, a joke, or a thrill. What he's doing poses a direct and immediate danger to your family. It sounds like you get it- now he needs to get it. I'd lend you a two-by-four with which to gently calibrate him, but my significant other doesn't want to share the one he uses. In the interim, you will be in my prayers.

As I stated, the distinction was implicit in your phrasing.On the other hand, I accept your clarification that the perceived distinction was not deliberate. The Church would be of poor little use if it were not. We already have a surfeit of "Christian" churches each espousing their own particular sectarian practice, creed, or kitsch. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be of no value if it were simply one more variation of the common theme. You are, but don't take it too hard.Not everyone can be as consistently and unfailingly correct as I am. For the record, I categorically reject that characterization. If a poster has something thoughtful or insightful to say, I can generally be counted upon to laud that poster's words- regardless of their announced faith or lack thereof. I have done so in several instances in your own case. If a poster has genuine questions and displays a sincere interest in learning and understanding LDS thought on a particular matter, I am more than eager to assist them. I do not, however, believe in sugar coating hard truths, nor in coddling or indulging those who are here only to flaunt their own ignorance or to stir up contention. While we disagree on a number of points, our disagreements have thus far been civil, if not necessarily genteel- a state of affairs I have no interest in changing. I never suggested that you were.Others, however, are not so "above board". I have been doing amateur apologetics (frequenting boards such as these and answering questions in other venues) for a number of years now. And to be perfectly blunt: there are people out there who will tell any lie, don any mask, and poison any well in order to attack and discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While an unpleasant reality, it is nonetheless an eternal verity- for both the LDS Church as well as the Catholic. So before presuming to cluck your tongue at me for being "twitchy", you might do well to consider how I came by my scars.

Horse manure. You need to face facts, not draw pretty pictures around the truth.He's a tagger. Artists- real, genuine, legitimate artists- create lasting beauty. Your man-child defaces other people's property for the thrill of it. Whether he calls it "art" or not, your husband is committing a crime. That's a lesson, a habit, and a mindset he will pass on to your child. This is very likely the only truth in his claims.Now- imagine your son or daughter saying the same thing when they get caught. Does it still sound okay to you? When he gets caught- and he will- it will affect his ability to provide for your child. At the very least, a criminal record will make it harder for him to find and keep good and stable employment. It will affect his credit, making it difficult for him to afford decent housing, school loans, and other needs your child will develop over the coming years. You think the worry is bad now? Wait until you have to pay the bills without him because he's in jail. Wait until you have to take your son or daughter through three levels of lockdown to see Daddy in his orange jump suit during Visiting Hours. Does that sound like fun to you? Or is it time to stage an intervention?

Phrases such as "Thus saith the Lord" and "On behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve" tend to be pretty definitive. What is said at Conference comes a close second- though the versions recorded in the Ensign and General Conference reports are better (as they have been reviewed and correlated). Brigham Young was a feiry- often extemporaneous- orator, and was reputed to have said that, "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 as evidence of President Young's arrogance and hubris, 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." Young was neither so boastful or foolish as to proclaim that his "word was law" as it fell from his, but was instead affirming that within his role as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, his words were binding upon the faithful who heard them. Note, too, the qualifying statement, "let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon"- meaning to double check it against and revise it as necessary to match extant doctrine, the Gospel, and Church law. This is particularly revealing because it is echoed in the Church's official answer that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve determine doctrine between them- as a thoughtful, considered process. Mormonism and doctrine/Statements by past prophets - FAIRMormon Because doctrine- and Church policy- are determined by the Brethren as a whole, a good rule of thumb is to determine whether or not what the individual is saying is consistent with the Scriptures, positions, and official teachings of the Church. Another good rule of thumb is whether the individual is speaking "on the record"- as an official representative of the Church and as an apostle (or at least disciple) of Christ. A good third and fourth rules of thumb are, "Do this man's words have anything to do with advancing his earthly commission?" and "Are this man's opinions valid within the scope of his calling?" I trust President Monson to direct the affairs of the Church- to assign mission calls, to set general policies (consistent with the Gospel) and to direct the deployment of Church resources (human and otherwise). Those functions are within the scope of his calling, commission, and post as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. Were he to announce that all members of the Church were to suddenly buy only Pontiac automobiles, I would take that advice with a much larger grain of salt- because it has nothing to do with his calling or commission as an apostle and witness of Christ. It should be noted that these are, of course, "rules of thumb". Ultimately, however, there is but one hard-and-fast rule to which we are bound: whether or not the Spirit of God ratifies the speaker's words. We as Saints- and more specifically as disciples of Christ- are required to "check our compasses" against that of the Church and the Holy Spirit. If we are confident and honest in that assessment, we may be confident and honest in judging whether the words and deeds of others are in keeping with the revealed Gospel. For additional reading, I advise you to check out the Church's official answer to this question, as recorded here.

Except for the implied division between "Christian" and "Mormon", I would have no problem with it, as you offered a qualified, rather than universal, statement (as bolded and underlined above).

Call For References, please. At what point, IC, did you copyright or trademark the term "non-LDS Christian" and thus gain the authority to define it for the rest of us? Or to be a bit more blunt, who are you to speak on behalf of all "non-LDS Christians" everywhere? Why not try the more intellectually honest and factually accurate phrase "my particular Christian sect believes"? I do so tire of sectarian evangelicals presuming- without consideration or evidence- that their particular, peculiar interpretation is somehow definitive of what "all true Christians" believe. I hate to break it to you, but your personal (sectarian) orthodoxy is NOT the one and only litmus test of "true" Christianity. This discussion will progress more smoothly once you realize that you do not have the authority to dictate terms for, on behalf of, or to, the rest of Christendom.

Save for being terrified out of their little cockroach-sized minds... Hard to believe that's Rene Aubergenois (Odo from Deep Space Nine).

There you go again- pointing fingers at the wrong people.No one in this thread has accused another of being an "anti-Mormon" or "ex-Mormon". No one HERE has used the term as a perjorative. WE are not the ones labeling them- and there is no wrong or sin in us acknowledging a term and a label THEY claim for themselves. As you said, it's their prerogative- so kindly stop lecturing us about using the term they themselves prefer. On the contrary, for the vast majority of those who proclaim themselves to be "ex-Mormon" or "anti-Mormon" as a badge of pride it IS a matter of US vs. THEM.They choose to make it so. Yes- and it is a sentiment THEY embrace, endorse, and practice.THEY- not WE are the one's running ministries designed to destroy people's testimonies and undermine the credibility of the Gospel, the Church, and its members. It is THEY, not WE who devote hundreds of thousands of dollars and man-hours to attacking and destroying another's faith. So, if you're going to point fingers, at least have the moral clarity to do in the proper direction.

Commercial Cajun food is a contradiction in terms. If it ain't cooked in a Cajun kitchen (preferably in Acadia Parish), it ain't Cajun. Now to go heat me up some boudin....

Break out the gumbo recipe...

The OP is a propaganda piece designed to influence policy by manipulating emotion. For far too many Latter-day Saints- people who are supposed to know better- it works all too often. It's simply amazing how many professing Mormons come to these boards promoting evil as good and godly. The linked piece tells only one "side" of the tale, and leaves out a great many facts which are not "faith-promoting" to the dogma being peddled. When we do not include every critics pet theory into our historical accounts, we are accused of "whitewashing". Yet the usual suspects are silent on the egregious bias in the linked piece. Could it be, perhaps, that the standard has been lowered for an ideology with which they agree? One of our Apostles was widely lambasted for allegedly saying, "not all truths are useful" (in reality, his words were being deliberately taken out of context). Funny- the other side doesn't seem to want to hold their own to that same lofty standard. I wonder why.

Your theory would work except for the fact that so many of them insist on describing themselves that way.Once reality intrudes, the whole theory that this is OUR fault for "labeling" THEM falls apart. The term "ex-Mormon" has negative connotations for only one reason: because so many negative people wear the title as a badge of honor.

I thought your first name was "Kissmy" (and "Tough" was your seldom used middle name)... ....I'm soooooooo confused....

Amen and amen!!!

Then you need to be specific about that upfront, instead of smuggling such presumptions into the conversation.This has moved beyond pointless, so I'm going to lay all my cards on the table and walk away. This thread was derailed into a gripe-and-moan festival because certain persons (note the plural) had their knickers in a knot because some of us had the "unholy", "un-Christian", and "scripturally-unprecedented" temerity to actually confront a troublemaker head-on. No- those are not quotes. But they are characterizations and descriptions that were offered and implied about those willing to tackle these individuals head-on. The wilting violets in our midst were appalled and distraught that others of us were not content to sing "kumbaya" or "lie back and think of England" while lies, defamation, and falsehood were spread about the Church. We get it. We got it nine pages ago. We simply don't care what you think, and we will not be brow-beaten into submission. Nine pages of thinly veiled accusation, subtle sneering, and holier-than-thou preening have done nothing except harden my resolve. To assume that I "lack the spirit", or that I am arguing "simply to win" is to both judge me without knowing my heart and is to miss the point. To assume that because I am blunt, I am somehow "less-Christian", "less-loving", or "less-pious" than you is to simply polish your own whited sepulchre. To assume that "anger" and "combatativeness" are my only responses is to ignore the evidence of your eyes- and it is being done solely to pigeonhole me. Here, I'll do it for you: I am NOT your kind of Mormon. I am NOT afraid to speak the truth plainly or even bluntly. I will speak, as moved by wisdom and the Spirit, in any fashion I feel is appropriate, and I will not come running to tug on your apron for permission. And if you don't like it, tough. My salvation is every bit as assured as is yours. If you don't like it, take it up with Heavenly Father. I'm certain he's got nothing but time to sit and listen to a litany about how you'd run things. Good and godly men through history- and prophets of this dispensation from Joseph Smith down to J. Golden Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and Bruce McConkie- have confronted evil and false-speaking of the Church head-on. They were widely (if not universally) reviled for the "sin" of speaking the truth, no matter how unfashionable or how politically-incorrect. But then again, maybe they're not your kind of Mormon, either.

Asked and answered.Because there are others watching. If we do not confront, correct, and defuse their falsehoods, then others will wonder 1) why we do not and 2) if we cannot.

Indeed- all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. If someone sees a lie go unchallenged often enough, they begin to wonder if it might not be true after all. For me, the bottom line is this: I may not dissuade the rabid anti-Mormon with Kool-aid stains around his lips and the Joseph Lied sign. But there are others watching and wondering about when and if the Mormons will stand up for the truth. If WE will not stand up for eternal truths, are we really disciples of Christ? Or are we just paying lip service?

Thank you gopecon, for capturing the idea so concisely.

Thank you. If I have misunderstood you, I too apologize, and would be interested in what you were actually trying to communicate. You wouldn't be the first. Of all of those characterizations, I strive for only the last. Noted, and likewise. With respect, I did not disrespect your experience with your grandfather- I simply found it to be a nonsequitor. Believe it or not, I feel the same way. MODS!!!!! SHE THREATENED ME WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!!!!! AAUUGH!!! AAUUGGH!! PANIC SCREAM WHIMPER SNARL!!!!! As I've said in other threads, if I am to be damned, it will be for who and what I am. I believe it is better to be honest and straightforward about what I believe than to try and hide my light (dim bulb though it may be) under a bushel. Your mileage may vary, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. That having been said, I'll try to be a little less reflexively abrasive to what I perceive as criticisms for daring to defend the truth as I see it.

Ploomf, I agree with you- but you have shifted the goalposts. You are now talking about methods and tactics, rather than goals. You have conceded what Miss Halfway would not- that it is sometime appropriate to confront and correct those who would attack and defame the Church. It is also important to note that each of your statements talks about dealing with people rather than arguments. I agree with you- we should try to approach all people prayerfully, as prompted by the Spirit, and with compassion and love unfeigned. But such an approach does not for a moment require us to dilute the truth or compromise principle in the name of amity. We are Latter-day Saints- called and commissioned by Christ to proclaim his Gospel and proclaim his eternal law. We have neither the right nor the authority to "soften" the truth or to compromise with iniquity in order to achieve a kumbaya moment with the natural man. The Gospel of Christ is not a negotiation in which both sides give a little or compromise in order to achieve a consensus. It is an ultimatum- an eternal, inescapable truth: come unto Christ on his terms or be damned (in the Scriptural sense of the word).

Backroads, please review post #55 above (and the excerpts highlighted below).In point of fact, I agree with you that "being neighborly" and Christ-like (unfeigned) love should be our default position. For the most part, I believe that such a response IS our default. I was very careful to draw a distinction between those who are simply questioning or are no longer in the Church. I was very careful to draw a distinction between those who are "perceived" enemies and those who are actively, aggressively and militantly hostile in their attacks on the Church. I was very careful to draw a distinction between making guesses about a person's motivations and judging them by their actions. I said nothing about anyone being undeserving of Christ-like love, and I said absolutely nothing about condemning anyone. I spoke specifically and exclusive about confronting and correcting attacks on the Church. Once again, I was talking about actions and arguments, NOT people. Please note the following passages from my previous posts: By definition, there are two categories being addressed here: those who are no longer LDS (for whatever reason) and those who are hostile and aggressive in attacking the Church. Two different groups, two different approaches. Again- two different groups, two different approaches. I would agree- except that MissHalfway doubled down on her position- and made a number of false accusations.Note the difference between your post and hers. You opened with "what I'm getting from your posts". She opened with a variation of "you're a judgemental pig for daring to disagree." All of her posts in this thread today are thinly veiled accusations. Her argument is that any resistance to those who would attack the Church is somehow un-Christ-like and that those who would presume to confront falsehood and ideologically motivated attacks on the Church are somehow less purely and perfectly Christian than she is. That is, at best, a false dichotomy. We are commanded to be a people of patience, long-suffering, compassion and unfeigned- that is as much a part of our commission as is the Sacrament and the Temple covenants. We are also commanded to confront evil in all its forms, and to defend and proclaim the truth. Miss Halfway's approach would emphasize the former goal over the latter. I, on the other hand, believe that both approaches can and must be a part of the Latter-day Saint ministry.