selek

And this is why the agenda is pernicious. Here we have a self-avowed Latter-day Saint on a Mormon discussion board congratulating someone for deliberately living a life contrary to eternal law and Church teachings. And hardly anyone blinks at the tacit endorsement...

VOTER FRAUD: Obama supporter indicted for voting SIX times » The Right Scoop - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20121112_In_59_Philadelphia_voting_wards__Mitt_Romney_got_zero_votes.html Fraud: Some told they already voted, others brag about voting multiple times - National Elections | Examiner.com Voter rolls in Ohio are bloated, experts say | The Columbus Dispatch ‘Are You Gonna Do What I Think You’re Gonna Do?’: Latest O’Keefe Video Purportedly Shows DNC Staffer Helping Woman Vote Twice | Video | TheBlaze.com Task Force Finds More Ballots Cast Than Registered Voters | WISN Home - WISN Home BREAKING: Massive Voter Fraud in St. Lucie County, Florida - Heather Ginsberg

Yep- when do you plan to deliver ?

Amen and amen, Vort. I served on an East Coast gator freighter (hauling Marines and their toys for five years). His military experience will be what he decides to make of it- and if he seeks friends of good character and morality, they will be found in plenty.

Ooh! Yes, please! Otherwise I'll have to make my own using the white chocolate chunks and macadamia nuts in the pantry- and that would be baaadddd....

Finrock, I have no objection to your position as detailed in Post #87.

Joining this thread late (and really not interested in reading nine pages of semantic haggling), but has anyone pointed out that "perfect" accounting both for the translation and the original vernacular also meant "whole" and "complete"? During his mortal ministry (having shed both his eternal perspective and much of his power and authority) Christ was "incomplete" pending the fulfillment of his mortal mission.

Was reminded of this in another thread, but it seems very appropriate to the tack this conversation has sailed: Luke 18: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. Given this, whom shall the Lord find worthy at that great and last day of judgement? The Latter-day Saint who kept not his covenants, or the sinner who made no covenants and yet sought Christ in all that he did and said? Unto whom shall the Lord be merciful? The Latter-day Saint who prided himself on "not as other men are"? Or the atheist who could not lift his eyes heavenward in his long life?

No matter how true it may be:evilsmile:

This is still a case of special pleading in which you apply a peculiar definition for the purposes of excluding those who disagree with you.Such definitions are intellectually dishonest no matter who offers them, or for what purpose. If you cannot make your case without deliberately perverting the language, then perhaps you'd best not make your case, at all. Call For References: please demonstrate factually where Joseph denied that these churches were "Christian". Again, you are resorting to private definitions in order to demagogue the issue. Call For References.Please demonstrate that Joseph was forbidden to join them because they were wrong, rather than because he was called to a greater work. Yes, the Lord states plainly that they were all wrong, and that their creeds were an abomination. Nowhere, however, does he state that this was the sole, or even primary reason, why Joseph was forbidden to join them. While you're at it you might address the fact that Joseph continued to worship with his family (a Presbyterian church, if I recall correctly) without actually becoming a member of the Church itself (as he had been commanded not to). Considering the number of instances of special pleading, jaundiced definitions, and blatant intellectual honesty in your posts thus far, I believe that Bytor is perfectly justified in insisting upon specificity, accuracy, and pinning you down on the details. That does not make them any less devout or sincere in their efforts to follow Christ.You are still trying to justify your casual redefining of the term "Christian"- and you are no nearer to accomplishing that goal. Horse Pockey.We got into troubles with a few isolated malcontents- including one who was committing fraud in order to "indict" the Church after they declined to pay her off. No- on the contrary, you solemnly declared that despite their sincere desire and offering, they were not "Christian"- at least according to your peculiar definition of the term. You need to work on your reading comprehension.Joseph's answer indicated that everyone- including Mormons- would be damned unless "they repent and work righteousness." It was not "being Mormon" that would save, but repenting and working righteousness. Without repenting and working righteousness, Mormons will be damned right alongside the rest of the heathens. Given the numerous problems with your posts thus far, I cannot help but wonder what rare combination of abilities and insights qualifies you to speak so definitively about Joseph's mind.

I would agree- except for the common denominator that in both instances, an uninvolved, uninformed third-party wants to raise a fuss based on their private definition of "inappropriate behavior".The settings may be different; the principle is the same. Unless my conduct is criminal, abusive, or dangerous (none of which has been demonstrated in the case of this High Priest)- just who are YOU (rhetorical, not personal 'you") to tell me it's "inappropriate"?

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Indeed- playful swats and pokes are common to the interplay in my family, even with my daughters and nieces.When they were younger (and so was I) they demanded that we play monster and had me chase them all over the neighborhood. When I caught them, I'd scoop them up laughing and screaming and throw them over my shoulder or tuck them under an arm and walk off with them. Should I have said 'no" because snoopy Mrs. Kravitz might leap to the wrong conclusion? My wife and I served a calling in the Nursery in a military ward in Virginia. With so many Dads away on deployment- and the nature of military families- for a lot of these kids, I was the only man in thier lives who'd get down on the floor and play with them. I can't tell you how many pony rides I gave, how many tackles and dogpiles I endured, or how much "rough housing" we did at Church (I was always extraordinarily careful and never had a child injured on my watch). And yes- at least one nattering Nabob pitched a fit to the Bishop because my actions were "inappropriate for a priesthood holder", in her stentorian opinion. Being a military man himself, the Bishop never called me on the carpet, but he did stop in to see how things were going- and told us to keep up the good work. So- should I have stayed off the floor just in case Sister Such-and-such get offended? Or should I have kept my focus where I believe it was needed; on being there for those kids?

Your body, your prerogative.Why, exactly, are the rest of us bound by your preferences? Agreed. If the attention and contact are unwelcome, then it is not appropriate. Ummm....who here has made such an argument?I have not. Nor has Draven, Vort, or Anatess. We simply object to the automatic assumption that this High Priest was in the wrong because some random third-party got his knickers in a knot. Again, context is everything.

Here's a better question: outside of the automatic and unwarranted assumption that there was a sexual element to this incident, in what way was it inappropriate? In other words, short of making unwarranted and prudish assumptions, in what way was this wrong?

This game is one of semantics and pedanticism whether it's played by anti-Mormons or pro-Mormons, and it's just as futile in either case.They are followers and disciples of Christ (however imperfectly they walk the path). That is sufficient to meet the standard definition used by most people of common sense, reason, and an open-mind. Actually, I don't particularly care what you call them.As I stated above, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization with the authority to perform these ordinances. That does not, however, automagically define everyone else as some sort of "counterfeit" Christian. Does Christ love Mother Teresa one iota less than Thomas Monson? Is the widow's mite she offered: a lifetime of selfless service to the best of her knowledge and ability; any less precious in the Lord's sight than Monson's offering? SOME Jews, Muslims, and Catholics have sought to prevent us from performing baptisms for the dead. SOME of the them. A tiny minority. The vast majority neither no of the practice nor particularly care. It is hyperbolic, bigoted, and foolish of you to tar all people in a particular group for the actions of a very few. Further, you seem to have an obsession with "No True Scotsman" fallacies and bigoted stereotypes. Not all Muslims are jihadis. Leave the ignorant bigotry at home, please (no matter at whom it is directed). There is no room for it here. Are they? Or are they simply following God to the best of their knowledge and understanding?That our interests do not align does not mean "they" are out to get us, let alone actively opposing us. You need to parse your remarks A LOT more carefully if you intend to be taken seriously.

First and foremost, the phrase "all Christian Churches" is both misleading and a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. In short, you are begging the question. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, for example, believe the rite of baptism is salvific and essential, rather than merely symbolic. Are you sincerely trying to suggest that they are not, by definition, Christian? Second, the "without body, parts, or passions" nonsense crept into the Church as they began to incorporate elements of Greek philosophy in order to make Christianity "more palatable" to the intellectual elites of the day. It is neither Scriptural nor true- and one must literally "wrest" the Scriptures in order to read such things in. Third, the "symbolic baptism", sola scriptura, and priesthood of all believers heresies crept into Protestantism when they tried to explain how their words were authoritative and yet those of the Church actually founded by the Apostles were not. Each is an ad hoc rationalization designed to bolster a particular position, and none stands up to extended (and informed) scrutiny. As a faithful Latter-day Saint, I believe you are painting with too broad a brush here.That there are those in other Churches who oppose us does not mean that all other Churches oppose us. That there are heretics, and fools, and demons in other Churches does not mean that they are not sincere in their efforts to follow Christ. Yes- we are the only "true" Church currently authorized and endowed by God to administer the necessary ordinances here on Earth. But that doesn't for a moment mean that God will not find their "widow's mite"- offered out of their poverty- to be acceptable.

Short answer? Because God commanded him to. Long answer to follow.

So in otherwords, you are prejudging the accused based on your own tragedies. Rather than responding to the accused and his actions, you are reacting to the harm done to your own loved ones. This is understandable, but it is emotion-driven, rather than rational. Again, you are assuming:1) that something inappropriate took place. 2) that the young woman in question needed protecting. Neither assertion has been demonstrated to be true. So... what you're saying is that timidity is an excuse to foist one's responsibilities off on the Bishop? This is base, foul, and offensive demagoguery.That we must either line up and bobble-head agreement with you or admit "to not sustaining our Bishop" is a false dichotomy. It isn't an either/or choice, any more than the notion that we must bow worshipfully before Obama or automagically prove that we are racist. It's hard because of the absolutism you are investing in this discussion.People of good conscience can and do disagree that the High Priest's behavior was automagically wrong. That in no way makes us any more or any less faithful Latter-day Saints than you.

Likewise. But I'm still apt to try and get you to cry 'uncle'. Agreed. Do you have any factual evidence to suggest that it was NOT? Speculation (at best) and raw opinion. Agreed- there is a vast difference between the formal "laying on of hands" when invoking Priesthood authority and all other physical contact. That does not, however, demonstrate that the accused's conduct was automagically wrong. If and when you are Bishop, that will be your stewardship.Until then, it is not. Apples and oranges, at best.Your particular mores and taboos- and those of your parents- are not binding upon the rest of us. In YOUR opinion. As outlined above, I disagree. By all means.

Not a strawman, but at worst, a slippery slope argument.Agree with the argument or not, it is justifiable given the number of posters who automagically leapt to condemning the accused. Congratulations on having the courage of your convictions.Better that than running to the Bishop with a purseload of gossip. This is an opinion. Others are not required to share it. As has been previously admitted (sometimes overtly, sometimes not), context is everything.Assuming- without knowing all the facts- that "the swat" was automagically inappropriate is speculating in advance of your data and is prejudging those involved. It is no more appropriate behavior to the faithful Latter-day Saint than the swat which you find so offensive.

So in other words, the man was asking to be accused and harassed until proven innocent.He deserves to be accused because someone else (someone totally ignorant of the facts) was upset by his conduct. In other words, the man is guilty until proven innocent. Well! Isn't that special!?! By all means. You can start by citing the section of the Priesthood duties which authorizes, requests, and/or requires that we go crying to the Bishop without first attempting to reconcile the matter between ourselves. Horse pockey."Talking to the Bishop" in this regard is a passive-aggressive attempt to foist the problem off on him, rather than dealing with it yourself. If the swat was innocent, then the only thing it will do is needlessly harass the accused (and waste the Bishop's time) and alienate the relationship between the man and young woman. You can be assured that- having been called on the carpet to explain himself- the accused will think twice before engaging in any such behavior again! Hurray! What a glorious triumph for the politically correct meddler! We can- and will- stamp out any behavior we don't like; and maintain our poise as pious, humble members by getting the Bishop to do our dirty work for us! Because that's the kind of virtuous conformity we need in this Church. The other problem with your rationalizing is that it won't provide closure to the aggreived party. Any counsel between the offender and the accused is necessarily (and legally) confidential. The only thing the "aggrieved party" (in this case the OP), will come away with is a vicarious and vacuous sense of "having done something." That sort of idiocy is precisely what led to the McMartin scandal and hundreds of innocent lives being ruined. The only thing the High Priest has actually been accused of is making the OP uncomfortable by swatting someone. Boo frickin' hoo. Last I heard, offending the delicate sensibilities of an ignorant stranger is not a punishable offense.

I make no such assumptions.Nor do I assume that the swat was automagically "wrong". Precisely my point.So why run and "tattle to teacher" when you're not even sure what you saw? As you pointed out in an earlier post, you don't want to be accused. I am quite certain that the man accused by the OP is no more eager than you in that regard. I don't believe the OP has enough information to decide, let alone to go in front of the Bishop and accuse this man. The only way he will get that information is to confront those actually involved. And that includes leaping to the conclusion that the man's behavior was automagically "inappropriate". Yet with few exceptions (Vort and Anatess being prominent) you are all bobble-heading along with the notion that the "swat" was somehow a heinous breach of decorum/propriety.That has not yet been proven. Ummm...no. Our gifts of spiritual discernment are limited to those matters within our stewardship. Our gifts of intellectual discernment are limited by our experience and our prejudices (and we all have them). Because of your BSA and Primary training, you are biased towards caution. Because of my experiences, I am biased against those who would offer up unfounded allegations without first doing thier homework. Well....that's one way of describing rampant speculation and a rush to judgement based on a priori assumptions.

Ram, I agree with everything you said, except the last sentence. No member of a ward has automagical veto authority over another's behavior- and it's not the Bishop's job to sort out every sordid little soap opera in the ward. I once had a grizzled old crone (sitting in the pew behind my family) lecture me about how it was inappropriate for me to put my arm around my daughters (on the back of the pew). Her father and husband would never have countenanced such a thing! I listened politely, thanked her for her opinion, and went right on doing what I and my daughters felt was appropriate- meddlesome biddies notwithstanding. Should I have been called on the carpet by the Bishop for my recalcitrant and "deviant" behavior?

You know, for all the guff I take about being harsh and judgemental, a lot of the posters in this thread make me look like a raw piker by comparison. I gotta wonder if jumping to conclusions, running people down, and competition-level gossiping aren't the only exercise program officially allowed in the Peyton Place 1st Ward. Some random complaintant gets his knickers in a knot because of an interaction between two people he wouldn't recognize on the street- and to hear you tell it, this wardhouse is a potential repeat of the McMartin Preschool debacle. Spare me the histrionics, let alone the mad torch-bearing rush to get the Bishop to "do something about this." "It made me uncomfortable". "It was inappropriate behavior." "It was sexual harrassment". Two words: Horse pockey. Paul Harvey (in his later years) was terrified of germs and disease- to the point that shaking hands made him uncomfortable. The average Sunday shake-hands-in-the-hallway would have sent him into twitching paroxysms. Shall we all go running to the Bishop for an intervention? For the record: some of you who are assuming (without any evidence to support the allegation) that this conduct was sexual. To my mind, that says more about the mindset of the accuser than the accused. Others acknowledge the danger, but are more reticent about screaming "Off with his head!" Count me among the latter. The reality is this: You don't know this man from Adam. You don't know this girl from Elsie the Milkmaid. But you're all more than willing to gossip and speculate about them. Don't we get enough of that crap from Babylon? Must we do it to ourselves? That this swat was "inappropriate" is simply an opinion, and a rather supercillious one at that. Not all of us were raised by strict Puritans, nor reared in an era/mindset where any physical contact between male and female was automagically sexual, inappropriate, or dirty. Circusboy, if you are truly concerned, you should speak to the individuals involved and take action as necessary from there. It is a triusm that the easy way is most often the wrong way, and the right thing to do is nearly always the hardest. The easy way to handle this is to tattle to the Bishop, stirring up a potential hornet's nest over something that may well (and most likely is) completely innocent. The right thing to do is to ask the people involved and sort this out yourself without convening a kangaroo court beforehand. That having been said, it's nearly always easier to hide behind the Bishop's skirts than to man-up and do it yourself. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor).

I've said it before, I'll say it again. We need the means to both "thank" and "laugh" at a particular post.