selek

I already DID. Homosexual intercourse is a sexual and moral deviancy, as are pedophilia and beastiality. And until recently, it was illegal in every state in the Union. Homosexual marriage, in turn, is a moral deviancy because it seeks to legitimize and advance a moral deviancy. Call For Reference, please.Exactly where is this alleged separation enshrined in the Constitution? Moreover, the separation of Church and State literally IS a "you're not the boss of me" argument- juvenile and puerile on its face. At its essential core, it boils down to "I get to define my own morality- you're (and your religion are) not the boss of me". The problem with this notion is that it's simply not true. All of our laws- from murder to theft to incest to pornography are a matter of common consensus on what it and is not ethical and moral. Imbezzlement doesn't suddenly become ethical simply because you decide the law (and the moral standards which define it) no longer apply to you. So where exactly, does the Constitution state that laws cannot (MUST not) be mandated based on the collective moral standards of the people where this particularly trendy fetish is concerned? I've been studying the Constitution for roughly forty years and have yet to find either of these particular gems of progressive wisdom. As you have previously admitted, we have laws against incest. We have laws against beastiality. We have laws against adultery. So why are sodomites exempt from the moral standards of society where the others are not?

Just a hunch here, but could it be because all three are deviant sexual behaviors at odds with traditional morality?Surely you remember your Sesame Street days,"...some of these things are not like the others; some of these things are kinda the same." Homosexual intercourse, beastiality, and underage sex are all fornication, no matter how you try to dress it up. News flash: so is homosexual marriage. That argument will not sustain you. "Just like I can't marry another dude". Because (based on the standard you were just waving) it is illegal. There are, of course, other sound moral and sociological reasons for that standard- but you're not really interested in them, now are you? Doesn't your argument really just boil down to "I don't think it's fair!" and "You're not the boss of me!"?

I understand that. I also understand that your words are the literal fulfillment of warnings made more than two centuries ago by Benjamin Franklin and Alexis de Tocqueville.

Now THAT'S a ringing endorsement, if ever I've heard one! Go easy on poor Barry... despite the fact that he actively sought (twice!) to be a leader and rolemodel for the American people, it's not fair to hold him to a high standard of any sort; after all, he's not any more morally corrupt or incompentent than a man who deliberately left a woman to drown in Chappaquidick, or the homosexual Senator who allowed his paramour to run a prostitution ring from official residence, or than the avowed child molesters currently trying to avoid prosecution (I mean YOU Bob Menendez). Talk about the bigotry of low expectations!

Thus ends the Republic...with thunderous applause from the rabble of Babylon.

One further note: I want to thank Anatess, Finrock, and Windseeker for engaging me without (overt? ) rancor or name-calling. We clearly do not agree on this matter, but I respect you tremendously for being willing to "lock-horns" with me over what you believe (and believe I am doing wrong). Thank you for asking, rather than merely assuming.

And you, as always. You got me on this one. I offered SAMormon no workable solution. That having been said, I am not convinced he/she/it actually wanted one, for the reasons I stated above (assuming they have not been editted out). On the contrary: all of that existed into this thread before I waded into it.SAMormon was more than happy to spread contention, smear good Latter-day Saints, and run the reputation of the Church and her people through the mud long before I arrived in this thread. My comments were merely the catalyst that brought the disaffection and disrespect into focus. Hi Windseeker, Your statement actually exposes the beating heart of my irritation: namely that we DON'T know that SAMOrmon was "rightfully irritated"- as no evidence of politicking, mishandling of personnel or resources, or favoritism has been offered. His/her/its (I'm still not certain whether we were dealing with a man or a woman- and frankly couldn't care less) entire argument was predicated on an appeal to stereotypes and to bigotry. Those were (in order of appearance): 1) the stereotype of wasteful, incompetent, back-biting workers in the Church offices and 2) "the ugly Americans". SAMormon asked if anyone else had heard such rumors (which are a perennial favorite in the anti-Mormon crowd) and then assumed that the stereotype had currency and used it as the basis for his entire tirade. As I've pointed out repeatedly, there's not one shred of evidence that the Church offices in SA are being misrun. But everybody was happy to buy into the stereotype and run with it- and denigrate, smear, and besmirch our fellow Latter-day Saints in the process. When called out of that unproven assertion, SAMormon went on to claim reverse racism- that "blacks" are treated more favorably by the Church because of their skin color- but never bothered to provide any evidence in support of that accusation. What do you call someone who throws out accusation, after allegation, after rumor, after stereotype- but never bothers to back up any of their charges? A gossip. And I, for one, find it difficult to stand idly by while my people- the Latter-day Saints- are gossiped about, lied about, attacked, smeared, and defamed- no matter who is doing it. Yes, we are counseled to avoid contention; but we are also commanded and commissioned to confront falsehood and correct error. That is what I was doing in this thread. Let me be clear: I was not defending that particular decision (it's not my stewardship). I was merely pointing out that there might have been reasons behind it other than the "cultural imperialism" or "bigotry" which SAMormon alleged were the cause. I probably would be; but on the other hand, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the only reason for the change was because the Brethren were a bunch of racist anglophobes seeking to establish a cultural monopoly. With respect, you are making two assumptions where without evidence:1) that I am ignorant on state of affairs in South Africa and 2) that everything SAMormon has told us is gold-plated truth. Neither is in evidence, but both appeal to your assumptions and presumptions. Thank you, I will attempt to acquire a company (good reads are always a favorite of mine). An assertion nowhere in evidence, I am afraid.Except for his/her/its "I really am a faithful Mormon. Honest. Cross my heart. Trust me." mea culpas (which are worth precisely as much as the paper they are written on), SAMormon's rant would fit right in at any number of apostate and "recovering" boards. As stated above, I would love to give SAMormon the benefit of the doubt- but he/she/it has steadfastly refused to extend the same to the members of the Church who allegedly provoked her ire, and has offered nothing but attacks on anyone who does not toe his or her line.

Clearly you DO mean to give offense- as evidenced by the fact that where I was addressing behavior, you have gone straight to jingoism and stereotypes. Clearly, you are prejudiced against Americans- which makes me question your credibility all the more. If this is how you handled your complaints about the Church office, it's little wonder that you failed to receive satisfaction. If anything, it is not American cultural imperialism on display here, but your own grudges and resentments. In your rather lengthy diatribe, you whinged incessantly- but didn't once mention trying to resolve the matter.Given that omission, along with so many others, gives us no reason to believe your story. Why then should I assume anything other than what I see in front of me? In other words, you admit that you are trafficking in second-hand gossip and deliberately sowing seeds of dissension.You have little or no first-hand knowledge; you know only what you are told. I'd buy that notion- except you didn't stop at asking the question; you went on to engage in character assassination and unfounded stereotypes. You offered blanket condemnations of everyone who works in the Church Offices and speculated about their motives and integrity, all without any apparent regard for what effect what your criticism might have on other's testimony. As I said above, I believe that is a road too far. And here we see yet another baseless accusation against those working in the Church; based solely on the chip on your shoulder and a bunch of unsubstantiated gossip.Call For References, please (that means put up or shut up); please demonstrate (factually) that decisions about the Kingdom of God are NOT made through the direction of God. You made the claim. Now provide some evidence for it. So now we add allegations of racism to your canard of ark-steadying and greivance-mongering.Why am I not surprised? For all your whinging and complaining, you haven't offered up a single shred of evidence to establish that your complaints are valid, or that your experiences are anything more than a desperate search for an excuse to apostatize. Call for Refences. Call For Refences. Call for Refences. Call for Refences. You were never doing otherwise. Wrong. It already is gossip, Church-dissension, and ark-steadying.You came here to kvetch and sow disaffection; to nurse your grudge and have your ego stroked. By your own admission, you knew well in advance that no one here would be able to solve your problem. By your own admission, you were seeking validation for your disaffection, rather than a means of resolving it. You (and others whom I actually respect) have demanded that I give you the benefit of the doubt in judging your conduct- a courtesy you steadfastly refuse to extend to those working in the Church offices (or anyone else, apparently who dares contradict you).

I suspect the FCC and several organizations dedicated to viewpoint censorship would have a series of strokes and coronaries.That might be one way of thinning their ranks and payrolls, but it strikes me as a bit extreme.

PC, I understand what you're asking- and I appreciate your desire to find a "good faith" explanation on behalf of the doctors. But if there were questions, they would have surfaced before CPS felt the need to justify its actions to the press. There is no indication that this is the case, and on the other side of the ledger, there is ample precedence of CPS' reach exceeding its lawful mandates and limitation. For the record, my own read on the situation is that the doctors and nurses at Sutter screwed up, and when the parents left, they did as they felt the law required and notified CPS. In my opinion, it was CPS who screwed up and over-reacted by either ignoring or allowing the first officer's report (clearing the parents) to fall through the cracks, and then seizing the child at (rheotorical) gun-point without performing a proper investigation- or even CALLING the parents to get their side of the story. I don't fault the hospitals or the police in this saga- both were fulfilling their legal obligations as best they understood them. CPS, however, reacted rashly, imprudently, and in clear violation of the Constitution and applicable law. There was NO due process (heck, there wasn't even a proper investigation), and the parents were both denied information about the charges alledged against them, and presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Good advice.I still don't believe that that excuses the behavior I have seen from this OP. Yes- and you may redefine "blue" to mean "green" as well, but it just doesn't make it so.If your husband witnesses a car crash in Alabama while you are vacationing in sunny Turkistan, it doesn't mean that YOU saw the car crash. Any information you might offer about the car crash is inescapably second-hand information (at best).

Then his license to practice medicine should be revoked, and he should be tendered for an immediate psychiatric evaluation.There was never any evidence of abuse or neglect offered against the Nikolaevs. That nonsense didn't surface until after the press got involved in questioning CPS tactics. According to the lawyer and the press, the doctors at Sutter had high praise for the Nikolaevs- right up until they removed their child from the hospital "without permission". Remember, both Sutter Memorial hospital and CPS refused to release any details of the allegations- even to the couple's lawyer. He (and they) sailed into that custody hearing blind- and still emerged with custody of the child. If there were any credible evidence to suggest the parents were neglectful, abusive, or incompetant, then CPS would be crowing from the rooftops about their vindication, not mursing their wounds with "periodic visits".

I've been following the case a bit more closely than that. The Nikolaev family had been seeing their own doctor at Sutter on a semi weekly basis since the baby was born, without incident. It was the doctors and nurses at the NICU who were raging incompetents. First, Mrs. N caught a nurse administering antibiotics to the child without explanation- which turned out to be in error. The doctors admitted that the child should not have been receiving the injections. The doctors and nurses had already screwed up care of the child, weakening, if not destroying their credibility with the Nikolaevs. With this question in their minds, the parents were alarmed when the doctors began talking about emergency surgery (when their own pediatrician had assured them such surgery was not immediately necessary), and became increasingly indifferent and hostile to their questions. That was the point where they took the child to Kaiser-Permanente for a second opinion. Lo and behold, the doctors at K-P agreed with the parents and pediatrician and cleared the Nikolaev's to take their baby home. The police were already on hand because of Sutter's complaints- and he, too, cleared the Nikolaevs to go home. In short- there was never any substantive suspicion of neglect or abuse against the Nikolaevs. None. Just a mine-is-bigger-than-yours contest between Sutter Memorial and Kaiser-Permanente, and with CPS throwing its weight around just because it can.

On that note, Baby Sammy has been ordered to a third hospital for evaluation, and custody of the child returned to his parents. The only two black marks in this case (IMO) is that per the judges order, 1) CPS will make periodic visits to assure themselves that all is well and 2) the parents are now under orders "to follow all medical advice". The former seems to me to be a sop to CPS given that their allegations were utterly baseless and their handling of the case criminally incompetent. The latter seems to me to be an unconscionable- and recklessly imprecise- violation of the parent's right to decide upon appropriate medical for their child.

Well, somebody's got to do it, and since I already have the body-type.... See my response to Earl, above, please.I understand the need to vent. On exceedingly rare occasions, I've been known to pop off in anger or frustration myself. I don't understand why the need to vent justifies belittling the integrity, faithfullness, and basic decency of others based on second-hand hearsay offered in the comforting assurance that those you are accusing cannot actually respond here. None of the people the OP is smearing can offer their side of the story. No proof has been offered in support of her allegations, which she has apparently not seen first-hand. It is the OP"s spouse who is employed by the Church, not the OP herself(himself?). We, as Latter-day Saints are commanded NOT to engage in gossip, back-biting and ill-speaking of our fellow Latter-day Saints. And we are most especially admonished not to do so in a public forum where our disaffection may harm the testimony of others. The OP waxes rhapsodic about how the workplace environment is supposedly harming testimonies, but gives no thought to how her own public roasting of the Church and its employees might do the same. This is an apples and oranges comparison on the one hand, and a red herring on the other.First, your home is not a Church-run office. You are not required to make any considerations or concessions in your home. A professional environment, such as the Church-offices operates differently. As stated above, I don't have a problem with people asking questions or seeking solutions.I do have a problem with them back-biting and gossiping and attacking the credibility of the LDS Church and LDS people. In the very first post (and in subsequent responses) the OP quickly moved well beyond asking questions and into making unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations against fellow Latter-day Saints. She repeated second-hand gossip as a weapon and a judgement against our fellow Mormons. Call it "a cultural thing", but I don't think that's appropriate or acceptable, even in so libertine a crowd as this.

Yes- unfounded gossip and fact-free denigration of people (particularly those in the Church) are push-button issues for me. I don't have a problem with people asking questions about the Church, about our theology, or our practice.I DO have a problem with them making blanket accusations and denunciations without offering a shred of evidence to back up their claims. I DO have a problem with them doubling down on those accusations and denunciations when someone offers them a sympathetic ear. As I noted above, the problem isn't the question: it's the unfounded assumptions and blanket smears being offered by someone second-hand. Unless I wildly misread the OP, it is not this poster, but her spouse who is employed by the Church.She is simply repeating the gossip he has brought home to her, as though it is authoritative. That is the kernel of unreasonability which drives my irritation. Good advice.

Because anything that distracts from the Presidents incompetence (deliberate and not), malfeasance, dishonesty, and abuse-of-power is a diversion Caesar Obama desperately needs right now.

My problem with SAMormon's anti-testimonial is that it is second-hand (at best), hearsay, and incredibly short on specifics. The only substantive accusation made is that the boss insisted that all prayers be made in English. <GASP!> You'd think he was burning Qorans or something! I'll point out that there may be a number of reasons for such a directive- not the least of which is that English is the only language shared by everyone working in the office. How edifying is a prayer that deliberately excludes some people from participating/understanding what is being asked of/shared with Heavenly Father? The OP is grumbling and complaining- spreading second-hand disaffection- without naming a single name or providing a single substantive fact to back up her allegations. That troubles me deeply. It smacks of pride, and suggests someone who wants to vent rather than to find a workable solution. As such, this thread is little more than tabloid-grade gossip- though most of posters have given it a more serious response than it seems to deserve. Do I think the Church-offices are free from petty politics, strife, or bureaucratic turf-wars? Of course not. But is kvetching about it on an anonymous internet forum going to do anything to solve the problem or inspire change? Not a hope in Hell. If you've got a problem with how the Church is run, or how it is administered, you need to take it up with the men who hold those keys, not whinge about it to total strangers.

Is she equally adamant that she should "do everything she can to raise the (future) kids LDS", but you do not need to agree? I'm sorry, but this statement raises some serious red-flags for me. Is your wife surrendering control of her (future) children's religious education a priori in order to appease your priesthood leaders? Or are you making such a promise simply to "get back into good standing" with no intention of actually following through? Either situation is deeply troubling... ...as you are 1) being dictated to about how you may or may not raise your children, and 2) to being forced to choose between your convictions and your loyalty to your spouse.

Hi August, The day-to-day practice of the LDS and Catholic faiths differ little one from another: prayer, Scripture Study, and trying to live humble, Christ-like lives. Your wife will want to avoid tobacco, coffee and tea, and alcohol. Depending upon her level of enthusiasm, she might also wish to avoid caffeinated sodas, but that's more a personal preference than anything else. Except where there are medical or health reasons not to do so, Mormons tend to fast for two meals the first part of every month. By the same token, she should respect your own abstentions and fasts (such as Lent). That having been said, you will face the same choices and obstacles as any other inter-faith couple: mostly involving choices about which religious observations to honor and which to ignore, and, most especially, about what to teach your children. These matters- particularly when approached in love and humility- can be overcome, and a reasonable compromise worked out (even if it's only an agreement to disagree). Where the rub will well-and-truly begin (in my opinion) is on the question of Temple marriage. LDS theology teaches that worthy couples may be "sealed" for time and all eternity. Instead of "til death do you part", a temple marriage between worthy spouses does not end. Not to put too fine a point on it, you (as a non-member) do not qualify. That's NOT to say you're a bad person (nor anything of the sort); but the reality is that you have not (and as a non-member, cannot) make the covenants with God that are necessary for a sealing. As your wife's faith grows, she will (all but inevitably) set her heart on the greatest gift our Heavenly Father offers: and will (equally inevitably) expect you to help her attain it. I don't say this to discourage you- only to forewarn you. As her own faith grows, your wife will want you to share in what she has attained, and become a member of our Church and partake of the covenants and blessings offered therein. In the interests of full disclosure, I hope you will do so, also). As a matter of conscience (depending upon your loyalty to the Catholic Church and personal witness), you may- or may not- be able to do so. No honorable (or faithful) Mormon will work to weaken the bonds between you and your wife, nor will any such pressure you to convert to the Mormon faith- except that you receive a witness of its truthfulness. God will not be mocked- and you do us, nor yourself any favors simply by "going through the motions" to keep your wife, your in-laws, or the neighbors happy. Ultimately, you and your wife have chosen a somewhat harder path than you might have realized. You CAN make it work, and I encourage you to do so. Both of you should: Be prayerful, be humble, be patient, be forgiving. Do not allow your disagreements to become a zero-sum game in which one of you must win and one must lose. Leave room for "holy envy", and realize that both our faiths have something of beauty to offer those who worship Christ. Above all else, keep your relationship- and its various trials between yourselves and the Lord. Your family will automagically be your partisan. Hers will automagically side with her. Both will paint the other spouse as a villain and hold grudges long after you've forgotten them. Such dubious allies cannot help but hinder your cause.

How about a big hug?

If "P equals Q", then "not P" equals "not Q".

Because you told me to, Drill Sergeant!

Incorrect.As per the Biblical account: 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. Eve may have been the only HUMAN female in the Garden, but she was not the only female. And so, perhaps, rather than an age jab, it might have been a horse of a different color...

No, I didn't misunderstand you- the fallacy is in your assumption that there is another woman who earned that spot. It isn't necessarily so. If I have fifty candidates and can only accept the top 25, #26 did not earn a spot. #29 did not earn a slot. Nor did #32, #47, or any of the other bottom 25. By definition, only the top twenty-five earned their slot. The rest did not. By the same standard and definition- and whatever selection criterion the school used- those who were not awarded a slot did not make "the cut". They might inherit a position if someone else bows out- but they did not "earn it". Thus, by definition, the situation which Goff is championing is that a woman who earned her slot should be forced to surrender it to someone who did not. Goff's reasoning is pernicious and intellectually dishonest for two reasons; first, she is advocating for and championing blatant viewpoint discrimination in an environment that's supposed promote both critical thinking and the free exchange of ideas. Or to quote the Talosian Keeper, "'Wrong thinking' will be punished. 'Right thinking' will be as quickly rewarded." The second pernicious flaw in her reasoning is the assumption that the position would automagically go to another woman instead of to the next most qualified person, regardless of gender. Returning to my example above, if Candidate #22 is forced to bow out, we can all agree that Candidate #26 should inherit the spot. But what happens if Candidate #26 is <gasp> a man? Should Candidate #32 (who happens to be the next most eligible female) be admitted instead of #26, a better qualified candidate who happens to be male? By making such an assumption, Goff has leapt beyond viewpoint discrimination to blatant sexism, discrimination, and a betrayal of the stated ideals of feminism. The feminists claim to want genuine "equality"- and the ability to compete freely based on one's talents and abilities instead of artificial gender constructs. But as this entire kerfuffle shows, it's not "discrimination" that Goff objects to- she is more than happy to disciminate- so long as she get to be the one doing the excluding. Despite all the lofty talk about "gender solidarity", Goff and her travelling sisterhood will happily throw a woman under the bus for not bowing towards their particular idol. The assumption that another woman would get the now-vacant spot is equally indicative that plumbing- rather than merit- would automatically exclude men as well. Thus do Goff and her fellow travellers become precisely what they claim to despise. They don't object to discimination per se- they just want to ensure that they're the ones doing the discriminating.