Posted on 01/19/2011 5:37:42 AM PST by Colofornian
That is just funny, Charles. There are FReepers who call the "anti-mormons" demon and much much worse on a daily basis. I will make a point to start pinging you to these posts every time it happens...be prepared for your "comments" page to become quite active. I wouldn't want you to miss the evidence.
That is how I do most of my thinking. I argue with myself, I take opposing positions and see whether I can defend my side. I love it when most people here think one way on some event, and I see it differently, and get a chance to present my view and defend it. Sometimes I lose; I even change my opinion when good arguments are raised. I don't know how often others here change their minds about things, but I do it more often I think than most. (Are you taking lessons from Obama on the repeated use of the pronoun "I"?;0) I'm here for a two-way exchange of ideas.
IMO, your attempts at a "two-way exchange more often turn out to be an "I'm right and you're wrong" pedantic, self-aggrandizing and verbose lecture as evidenced by this post you just made to me....and I have seen other FReepers volunteer a similar opinion.
You state "I love it when most people here think one way on some event, and I see it differently, and get a chance to present my view and defend it."
There is a difference between actually taking part in a discussion and using the discussion as a basis for favoring one side of the discussion as an opportunity to "present and defend" your opinion.
In other words, I ask the question, "Do you have a dog in this hunt?" Your posts seem to nearly always defend mormonism against criticism.
You state "It's not an object of faith with me though, as clearly in many instances here I've looked to polarize, made clear distinctions, emphasized differences, and encouraged division. Contrarian is a good word for me."
You have a right to your opinion either way, but I'm quite pleased to see your description of your motive. I just wonder where your contrarian position falls within the Religion Forum rules. It seems to me there is enough of the "polarization" on the mormon threads already. Some who have posted with that same position have been questioned by the Religion Moderator.
In any case, we can thank you for bumping the thread.
Here’s yet another bump.
Praying that eyes may be opened.
I'm not sure you even understand lds beliefs.
Perhaps Californian and the other obsessives should have a dedicated forum category. ;-)
Or you can follow the RMs guidance and avoid those threads.
But there are many religious beliefs among conservatives and Free Republic has this Religion Forum to reveal and/or debate those beliefs.
Free Republic is pro-God, meaning “pro” the One Judeo/Christian God, not the Allah of Islam, not polytheism, not pantheism and so on.
Some Freepers hold other religious beliefs and are welcome on the Religion Forum to present their beliefs and argue for them or against Judeo/Christian beliefs. They will be treated even-handedly under the RF guidelines, but frankly the pro-[the One Judeo/Christian] God side would be favored in a toss-up.
Atheists, on the other hand, are obvious trolls on any Religion Forum. In the eyes of RF regulars atheists are probably seen as naked much like the emperor in the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” It would be merciful to show atheists the RF door, but for the sake of the RF theologians and laypeople who are on a mission to give cloakroom directions, even atheists are usually allowed to present their lack of belief and argue on the RF.
What is the definition of your term "cloakroom directions"? Google doesn't have one. ;0)
LOL. By “cloakroom directions” I mean preaching, witnessing, contending for the faith, etc. - words aimed at getting the other guy to realize that he is naked before God.
Looks like a blue bagel to me.
Must be a lot of blueberries added to that batch.
They do. You're on it.
Or did that little detail escape you?
In fact, Charles, you MANGLED it out of context.
Here are the "facts" Charles:
Within 5 days, articles appeared in both Canada and the US about those within the broader MORMON culture who used water injuriously toward children.
That's not "libel," Charles. That's reality!
In Canada, it was a supposed "pattern" id'd by an ex-fundamentalist MORMON. (Nobody died Charles...not that I'm aware of)
No blood was shed, Charles (Not that I'm aware of).
So where's the "blood" there you've referenced now 8 times on this thread???
The USA article DID cover a real victim (no bloodshed involved) who REALLY died.
Her LDS Mom, REALLY did use water to kill her. She made her drink way too much -- apparently trying to communicate to the girl, "You want to steal a sip of juice" from your sister? Here...drink...drink...drink...drink...
The fLDS cases involve a very disturbing pattern of "discipline" because babies & toddlers cry.
The LDS case involved an extremely disturbing case of "discipline" because a 4 yo girl stole a sip of juice from her sister.
In ALL these cases ALL involving the broader MORMON culture, "discipline" was the apparent motivation & water was the "disciplining agent" used.
You have several similarities here, Charles...enough to warrant mention in a same sentence without some hyper-sensitive poster jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
I say "unwarranted" because no blood's been shed that I'm aware of; even the one death victim of a REAL LDS mom didn't draw blood, Charles.
You especially mangled context, Charles, as to the very reason it was brought up in post #16 to begin with.
#16 was a response to Hulka, who said in post #8: "Point is, this wacko sect is expelled from the Mormon's"
Hulka was essentially claiming that only "expelled...wackos" would be guilty of such a thing as using water to torture anybody.
My response was essentially communicating "Oh? If that's the case then why did the Salt Lake Trib today have this article about this LDS mom being released from jail because almost 20 years she used water to kill her child?"
IOW, I was communicating that it didn't take some "wacko" MORMON sect member to be guilty of misusing water in the process of unfounded "discipline."
As it was Charles, the whole reference involved 3 short sentences + a link to the actual crime -- so that REAL readers who actually know how to properly discern something didn't have to wonder about vague inferences & innuendos...they could go direct to the actual crime story which was in NO WAY "libelous"...nor would any poster thereby have to "guess" as to what I was talking about.
But, leave it to you, Charles to be hypersensitive about this & tangle it as you mangle it!
Charles, please re-read the headline of this thread: It has the word "torture" in it. Holding babies under a faucet.
How much "blood" is drawn in such torture? (NONE)
How many fLDS babies/toddlers have died at the hands of fLDS being held under a faucet? (NONE than I'm aware of)
Did the ONE case where a child died at the hands of an LDS woman that's been referenced on this thread -- was there even "bloodshed" involved in that case? (I don't think so)
Charles, it seems to me YOU have done more than anybody on this thread to keep throwing the accusation of "blood" on LDS hands.
Do I think there's "blood" on contemporary MORMON hands involving anybody who hasn't been tried & found guilty?
The answer is REAL simple, Charles: You have to have "dead victims" to even toss that out...and that 4 yo who died already got justice (to some degree).
Where are your victims of bloodshed, Charles to make the accusation of "blood libel?"
Even NONE of the "torture" victims have apparently died or even shed blood, Charles!
And where's the "libel" Charles?
Even the PERPETRATOR of the one LDS victim that's been discussed HAS ALREADY BY YOUR definition been "libeled" Charles. (She's been id'd, tried convicted, & done 16 years' time as a murderess!)
Let me get this straight, Charles...
...You're telling us that if...
...an LDS poster accuses a REAL Christian who REALLY killed a 4 yo girl...
...& this woman was REALLY tried & was REALLY convicted & did REAL PRISON TIME...
...on a thread where some other Christians were generically accused of "disciplining" their kids in a manner that used the same object that killed that hypothetical 4 yo girl...
...that we could respond on such a thread that the said LDS poster is guilty of "blood libel" toward "Christians?"
Really?
Charles, since when is accusing a real murderess of a real crime defamation?
Charles, since when is accusing a real murderess of a real crime slanderous?
Charles, since when is accusing a real murderess of a real crime libelous?
And Charles that took up all of about 60 words on one post (Post #16).
THAT'S WHAT I MEANT ABOVE WHEN I SAID: "YOU have done more than anybody on this thread to keep throwing the accusation of "blood" on LDS hands."
YOU, Charles have raised used the term "blood libel" 7 times already on this thread (posts 39, 53, 89 - twice, 135 - 3 times)...Therefore, 7 times you've already implied on this thread that there's some "controversy" afloat that LDS have "blood" on their hands.
When people see "controversy" they wonder -- what's the controversy about?
Oh...they find out...somebody has been accusing somebody else over & over again of "blood libel."
Oh, there must be original "blood" somewhere if Charles the shark is swimming around that.
And what do they find? Massive accusations of "bloodguilt" on the part of LDS? (No)
No, one REAL case involving ONE real victim in a 60-word or so reference -- one as I've just mentioned in my previous post -- has been taken WAY out of context by Charles!
Charles, you hardly seem to be an any "ally" of LdS when you repeatedly keep using the word "blood" in reference to them!!!
...conflating the FLDS and LDS churches...
Yeah, leave it to the "king of 'conflaters'" -- everybody read post #78 to see what I mean -- to read "conflating" into this!
Charles, the way I used "conflating" to describe your postings in #78 meant that you were using assumed cases of "abuse" to fuse into real ones...with the degree of so-called "abuse" being much less -- if there at all.
In post #16, I mentioned a REAL case of abuse by an LDS mom that was even much worse than what the headline's about on this thread! And nor was it "assumed" -- it was an actual, REAL case...hardly "libelous" in any way!
What's even worse, Charles, is to actually have the king of 'conflaters' make such an accusation.
How many posts now have you authored that accused the Texas CPS of "abuse" -- even "irreparable harm" by the CPS -- all minus any evidence presented by you?
At least the one case I've referenced -- a real victim and real evidence was presented -- and even linked to when I referenced it in post #16.
You? Apparently nobody else holds you accountable for your "abuse libel," eh Charles?
That's what's so ironic. Here who knows how many times you've been guilty of committing "abuse libel" on these threads -- abuse libel toward the Texas CPS -- and here you're so quick on the draw to point fingers for what you see as an "infraction" of something you've regularly done.
Charles, take the beam out of your own eye...(well, I think you know the rest of that quote)
Time Charles for you to publicly confess to your sins of abuse libel.
Didn't you say to me in post #108: If you had posted that IN the thread where the original comment was, at the time we were discussing that, it would have been great.
Tell you what, Charles, why don't you be consistent in applying your own words to yourself for once!
This thread was originally about testimony of fLDS parents holding babies/toddlers' heads under a faucet. A crime if this really occurred, yeah!
But not officially a crime -- 'cause nowhere was it mentioned that anybody was prosecuted for it!
Yet, here, you go off confusing threads talking about how this supposed thread was started talking about...
...a prosecuted "crime"...
...entering into "evidence" aspects of another crime of which no foundation has been laid [sorry, Charles, you're confusing threads...if you're going to talk specifics (& not generalities) about "she CLAIMED the technique came from a counselor..."... WHO are you talking about?
You also mentioned a "baptism." Where's a "baptism" mentioned in the article of this thread? Which poster before you here has even discussed the word "baptism" on this thread?
You're mentioning things ("technique came from a counselor" and "baptism") that wasn't even mentioned in THIS original thread article, let alone any discussion this thread's article has prompted!
No wonder you've been so confused in launching your "blood libel" lables...you can't even keep your threads straight!
That is how I do most of my thinking. I argue with myself... (CharlesWayneCT, post #134)
Gee...Charles...are you really coming apart -- coming "undone" on this thread?
Tell you what Charles: Why don't you apply your own post #108 standard to yourself & wander on over & plop some of the comments from this post onto that other thread where you say it belongs! (Or...at least give "attribution" to whatever article you're talking about before you introduce new subject matter into a thread conversation). Your choice. But please be consistent.
ALL: If you hit "control-f" as you go through this thread, you'll find in previous posts words like "inconsistent," "contradictory" & "how consistent are you?" utilized to describe our friend, Charles.
Our friend here has at times defended the Texas CPS from being labeled kidnappers, only less than four months later call the same exact people "kidnappers."
By his own defense of them -- saying the Texas CPS was NOT kidnappers -- he is "guilty" (by his own words...not by any imposition of anybody else) of "abuse libel." He has libeled them being "abusive."
Charles: In this little phrase you've mentioned here, "I argue with myself..." -- is that an explanatory one as to why we see the rollercoaster we see from your posts?
If so, could you let us know which Charles we're "arguing with" before we continue this dialogue? ('Cause it's starting to get a bit maddening)
Wow, never heard anything like before...
That does look like a bagel!
Breaking news...the outmanned icecycled puppysled...
...of which only one lone puppy survived...
...finally reached Verity...
...with ice-cold, bone-chilling news...
...that a "Religion Forum"'s been opened on Free Republic.
Thank the Lord for those brave never-say-die puppies.
"Oh, no!" replied Verity, obsessing about...
...free expression of religious views being expressed
...on a free religion forum
...on an overall forum noted for freedom
...in a free republic country
...devoted to remaining a free republic.
"Vut shall ve do?" (he anxietied about).
And, so, urgently, Verity...
...a name derived from his fave phrase to his wife, "Vear (Wear) it, Dee!"
...scribbled a terse dozen-word response,
...popped it into another puppy's mouth, and told him, "Here, boy. Deliver dis. And ye shall save da vorld!"
Finally, reaching the outskirts of Alaska, the puppy, before keeling over & dying, handed the message off -- slobbered over with fresh puppy's breath...
...to Verity's transcriber...and hence we have post #144 on this thread.
[Verity...while I have to commend your sacrificial puppies, tell your transcriber that if they mention a resemblance of me on a post to ping me...
just known as...
...good manners...
...online etiquette ...
...avoidance of pure gossip...
...& all that...
...which, ya know, I know -- you being in the out outback & all...
... have no real need of worrying about since your neighbors are miles & miles & miles away anyway...
...anyway, since I knew this couldn't possibly be your error...
...it just had to be your transcriber...unless, of course,
...the puppy slobber erased that part of your message...]
Perhaps, scratch that I'm certain of it, you would be happier on DU. They also hate Christianity and morality.
You must admit that those who are truly obsessed with LDS flew their flag. :-)
Again...where has that in this thread? (The only references to "demon" are two by a MORMON -- Restornu...see posts #59 & #60)
If you meant "demonize" re: crimes -- then let's see some equality from your postings.
For example, I can go to Mormon church-owned radio station KSL.com. Click on the religion page, and about halfway down the page see this section:
The second article listed under that section is this one:
Police: Pa. pastor shoots son during fight Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:40:08 GMT
So...here's a Mormon church owned Web site...
...Linking to a crime committed by a Christian pastor.
And look. It's even almost "breaking news" status...why, they've had that link now up for how long? (Oh...only one year and 27 days now)
You -- or Restornu -- would you like to explain to me why the Mormon church sees it relevant to link to that story for almost 400 days now?
Are you, Charles, due to this revelation about a Christian committing a crime, going to accuse the Mormon church of...
...(1) demonizing the Christian church?
...(2) guilty of "blood libel" against all Christians because the Mormon-owned KSL.com linked to a crime accusing a Christian of blood violence?
C'mon Charles...we'd like to see your sense of consistency here: Is the Mormon church guilty of "blood libel" by leaving this link up for almost 400 days?
Restornu: Are the KSL.com Mormons "anti-Christian" because of that link to that crime story about Christians being left on their Web site for almost 400 days?
And, Resty, per your reference to "demon" in posts 59 & 60 of this thread, are the KSL.com Mormons subtly demonizing ALL Christian pastors from Pennsylvania or even ALL Christian pastors or even ALL Christians?
Where's all of your sense of fairness in tossing "anti" and "demon" and "blood libel" phrases around so loosely? If you all portend (pretend?) to judge the public square so "fairly," then let's see some of your outrage geared toward KSL and the Mormon church head haunchos who oversee their media properties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.