Posted on 01/19/2011 5:37:42 AM PST by Colofornian
Water torture of babies is one way some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day instil fear of authority, a former member testified Wednesday.
"It's quite common," Carolyn Blackmore Jessop told the constitutional reference case to determine whether Canada's polygamy law is valid. "They spank the baby and when it cries, they hold the baby face up under the tap with running water. When they stop crying, they spank it again and the cycle is repeated until they are exhausted."
It's typically done by fathers and it's called "breaking in," she said.
Ms. Jessop, who is from Arizona, testified about the practice during her testimony in B.C. Supreme Court.
Outside the courthouse, Ms. Jessop said water torture is common enough that there doesn't seem any shame attached to the practice.
In her cousin's baby book, there is a handwritten note by her mother noting that when her daughter was 18 months old, she was becoming quite a handful and, as a result, was being held under the tap on a regular basis.
SNIP
"Polygamy is not pretty to look at. It is nice that it is tucked away in a dark corner where nobody has to see its realities because it's creepy," she told Chief Justice Robert Bauman, adding that her biggest concern is that polygamy and all of its consequent abuses are ignored by the courts and law enforcement.
SNIP
...Her mother's family have been polygamists since Joseph Smith had his revelation about plural marriage in the mid-1800s.
Ms. Jessop was 18 when the prophet determined that she would become 50-year-old Merril Jessop's fourth wife...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
Challenge time...Charles.
Challenge #1: I encourage you -- go consult with a mainstream MORMON. Find out if the differences in what they believe are indeed ENOUGH to tell the fundamentalist MORMONS to their face that they indeed aren't "MORMON"! (After all, you may want to explain to them why they aren't ...Go ahead...do the allied work on behalf of MORMONS on this issue)
Me? My consultant? Why, I choose LDS Canadian FREEPER Edward Watson to the FREEPER stand. I've seen Edward on certain threads post how prolific his writings are.
Now, I've haven't read them, and I certainly no doubt disagree with most of his conclusions -- including some of those below I'm about to quote you -- but I will quote what he told me back on April 17, 2008:
Of course the FLDS is a Christian faith. Their denominational taxonomy, following the Religion-Branch-Family-Denomination matrix, is “Christian-Mormon-Fundamentalist Mormon-Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They do not belong to the Catholic, Eastern Christian, Protestant, or Anglican/Independent Catholic (Via Media) branches; they belong to the Mormon branch of Christianity, but in a completely different Family (Fundamentalist Mormon). Others in the same Family are the Apostolic United Brethren, Latter Day Church of Christ (Kingston Clan), and The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days). Get your facts straight. There are four families in the Mormon branch of Christianity [CJCLDS, Fundamentalist Mormon, Liberal Mormon, Prairie Saints] just as there are 20 denominational families in the Protestant branch of Christianity.
Source: FLDS opponents say wrong man named in warrant
What do I believe is the most important part of that quote?
Well, to project what Edward says, he essentially is saying that just as Presbyterians and Lutherans are extended FAMILIES in the Protestant BRANCH of Christianity, that fundamentalist MORMONS are extended FAMILIES in the "MORMON BRANCH"...THAT'S MORMON BRANCH SINGULAR!
IOW, Charles, the LDS are to regard the fLDS just as conservative Presbyterians are to regard United Methodists!
Now, certainly, I disagree with Edward that the Mormonism branch is to be classified as "Christian." (But hey, I'm sure plenty of Edward's fellow Mormons will likewise disagree with him on something I've just uttered...so they can't say I'm doing something they aren't doing)
Challenge #2...see next post...
Challenge #2: Since you've made a huge issue of "motives" this thread [posts #52, #51, #47]...Please...
(a) Show me a SPECIFIC post where I said, "Charles, your internal motivation is this & that" (Keep in mind that a perceived "defense" on your part doesn't require of me to even question what your "motive" is for posting such a perceived defense...a perceived defense is outward...a motive is inward...I keep that distinction. I respectfully request you make it a similar one.)
Well, before I get to part (b) of this second challenge, I need to cite you what prompted it!
...while you could argue, I would say inaccurately, that I am an “ally” of the mormons on the point of having their misguided faith attacked on a conservative political forum, you assume facts not in evidence when you suggest that mormons are MY allies. I have no idea if any particular mormom poster would ally with me on any subject, they certainly aren’t coming to MY aid in this thread, and overall I doubt the Mormon church would have anything to do with me, much less be my ally. [Post #42]
Hmm...
So here you accuse me of being...
...inaccurate...
...a faith "attacker" [which, BTW begs the question if we are ever to "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" - Jude 3, etc.]
...an "assume[r of] facts not in evidence"
IOW, in a word, "baseless."
So...Charles...do you think I just pulled this word ("ally") out of thin air in tossing it your way? You don't think I would have at least had some apparent grounding of reality as to why?
Well, I get it, Charles. You're gonna "make me" document every "basis" to every detailed point of documentation. [I love that accountability, Charles...I'd just hope you will be reciprocal and also be receptive to receiving such accountability as well]
(b) So, Charles before I pinpoint a comment of yours that lays my foundation of "evidence" re: my "ally" comment, allow me to document a few observatives that leads up to a question I have for you -- a question I generally referenced in a previous post.
Key Observation based upon grouping other observations below: You seem to display, Charles, over these past almost three years, an appetite for "de-linking" the fLDS from the LDS.
You seem to discourage allowing for almost ANY overlap (well, perhaps minus what you've said this thread about sharing abbreviations & some names).
So, I began to ask myself, "why?"
Well, that's troublesome to assume...'cause THEN you get into the "motive arena."
So, the way we get around superimposing our guesswork motives into other posters is to simply ask them.
Why the above? Why have the following observations surfaced from your comments?
* You haven't favored contrast-and-compare specifics of the branch of MORMONISM [BASIS: Your comment, May 6, 2008: I was discussing the generalization of the comparison between TWO RELIGIONS. I’m not actually discussing THE SPECIFICS of those TWO RELIGIONS, just whether it is a fair comparison to claim they are identical..If someone was arguing that some leader of FLDS compared to some leader of LDS, I wouldn’t bother to join the discussion..]
Source: May 6, 2008: LDS rebut N.Y. Times Web article
* You haven't been seemingly interested in commenting upon parallel situations of fLDS leaders today to LDS leaders of yesteryear [same source]
* You eschew certain associations [post #46] In my opinion, there are enough clear distinctions to argue about in LDS doctrine that we shouldn’t have to stoop to false guilt-by-association arguments -- seeming to rule out-of-hand certain overlaps minus any proof offered that ALL such associations are off-target.
* You seemingly haven't favored emphasizing the Mormon branch commonalities; rather, "distinctions" was your key byword [ibid source]
* You don't seem interested in comparative teachings, doctrines, dogmas, articles of faith, common "scriptures" of this Mormon branch.
On and on.
I just can't see with you that'd it be the "Mitt Romney" connection and your former support of him, right? [Correct me there if I'm wrong]
As I indicated, motives have to be revealed by the person themself. And it seemed to me that you revealed such a political philosophical motive 18 months ago.
Now, note...I'm not guessing your motive here...I'm simply allowing you below here to speak for yourself. Now if it doesn't apply to our broader conversation, just say so. But please comment on these quotes of yours below -- and please, as you read them, would you at least understand why I referenced you as an "ally?" (That I just didn't pull out that word out of thin air?)
* CharlesWayneCT quote -- to SoConPubbie: As a political matter, I don't think it wise to attack political ALLIES over their religious beliefs. It's not like conservatives have so many ALLIES that they can afford to throw most of them off the bus. July 29, 2009
Source: Mormons: The Most Conservative Religious Group in America (Post #527)
* CharlesWayneCT quote to Elsie:
--Perception is important when you are talking about people who you want to vote for your candidates, and work for your candidates and positions. It makes little difference what intent is,
--if a significant number of your otherwise political ALLIES BELIEVE that you are attacking their religion and telling them to go away, and they do so, you will have a real problem, even if that wasn’t your intent.
--It is difficult to mix politics and religion, because in politics we need a majority of people on “our side”, which means we will have people of faiths that we disagree with as political ALLIES.
--Most of us are able to distinguish between political support and religious belief, but it isn’t necessarily “easy” because at some level most of us believe our religion makes sense, and others obviously DON’T which is why we choose the religion we do. It is a small step from that to believing that those who follow other religions might not be trustworthy enough, or smart enough, or really conservative enough, simply because we see their error in their religious beliefs. But no religion has enough adherents to make a majority vote by itself. And if we focus on religious differences, the split will doom the conservative movement. July 29, 2009
Source: Mormons: The Most Conservative Religious Group in America (Post #530)
Questions:
* So are these your primary considerations as to why we see you "go to bat" the way you do -- however you want to define that spraying of the ball around the infield and the outfield?
* Is this a sort of semi-Big Tent to some degree?
* Where do you draw the boundaries on this Big Tent?
* If you can draw boundaries, why are other boundaries drawn differently by others necessarily out-of-bounds?
* Why do your quotes above seem to ignore the historic (& significant) Mormon leadership attacks on Christians for these past 180 years?
* IOW, why does it seem you only focus re: "attacks" on a minority religion -- all while seemingly ignoring the Ground Zero which began such fireworks?
* How is it that you seemingly lecture conservative Christians to be almost silent thick-skinners in receiving the attacks of the cults, yet you cater to the thinnest of skins of cultists? (Your comment re: ...if a significant number of your otherwise political ALLIES BELIEVE that you are attacking their religion and telling them to go away, and they do so, you will have a real problem, even if that wasn’t your intent.) IOW, if we an put up with their significant attacks, why no apparent even-handed call to say, "Hey, it goes both ways?" (Or why no challenge to the cultists to have their leadership tone down what is said -- or to have politically-minded Mormons stop funding these attacks?)
Question #1 at hand: Is it important to have a POTUS whose God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Principle #1 that addresses this: THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS [LET'S HAVE A 'COMMISSIONER GORDON' WHO ACTUALLY HAS A 'BATPHONE' DIRECT LINE TO THE GOD OF THIS WORLD IN THE MIDST OF CRISES SITUATIONS!]
[CharlesWayneCT, July 29, 2009]
Source: Mormons: The Most Conservative Religious Group in America (Post #530)
Question #2 at hand: Who rejected who?
Principle #2 that addresses this: DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?
It is difficult to mix politics and religion, because in politics we need a majority of people on “our side”, which means we will have people of faiths that we disagree with as political ALLIES.
[CharlesWayneCT, July 29, 2009]
Source: Mormons: The Most Conservative Religious Group in America (Post #530)
Question series #3 at hand: Don't candidates already inject 'religion' into their campaigns? And so we as voters are supposed to ignore that? Or other sub-blocks of voters? Don't they often favor a candidate because of religious alignment -- yet they are not criticized for it? Why is it seemingly 'OK' to vote for a candidate for primarily or only because of his faith; but the reverse is often frowned upon?
Principle #3 that addresses this: NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT
[CharlesWayneCT, July 29, 2009]
Source: Mormons: The Most Conservative Religious Group in America (Post #530)
Question #4 at hand: Is there a transcendent-yet practical-issue beyond faith under consideration here?
Principle #4 that addresses this: WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
Question #5 at hand: Is true faith and misdirected faith part of our character? And if yes, why wouldn't "character" ever NOT therefore be an issue upon which to seriously evaluate a candidate?
Principle #5 that addresses this: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
Principle #1: THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS [LET'S HAVE A 'COMMISSIONER GORDON' WHO ACTUALLY HAS A 'BATPHONE' DIRECT LINE TO THE GOD OF THIS WORLD IN THE MIDST OF CRISES SITUATIONS!]
Say what? Obviously God hears the prayers of all people. But we know from reading the Bible that God seemingly responds more favorably to those He is in an actual relationship with...versus examples like Pharisaical religious legalists whom Jesus said were of their father, the devil (John 8). You mean religionists who might prefer having a POTUS in the White House who actually knows the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to call on that Living God during a Jack Bauer-like crisis is NEVER to be preferred over voting for an atheist candidate on faith grounds??? (Otherwise, that "weakens the religious foundation" of our country? How does that make any sense?)
Principle #2 - SOME PEOPLE TURN ON ITS HEAD WHO REJECTED WHOM! [DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?]
Were we to discuss candidates representing a broad range of alternative religions, I would guestimate that 60-80% of them do not necessarily go out of their way to slam Christianity or badly slander the spiritual reputation of Christian adherents for chunks of 170-180 years at a time. That can't be said about true-believing LDS candidates (in distinction from Jack Mormon candidates).
Simply put, the true-believing Mormon candidate who approaches us historic Christians is saying:
"You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' Can I count on your vote then?" [See below for chapter & verse]
Conclusion: When a candidate mislabels 75-90% of his voting base's primary faith tenets and claims & reduces them to mere "apostate" status--Note that LDS "Scripture" specifically labels the entire Christian church as "apostate" and Note that 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)...
...Then...
...he not only shows open disdain for his voting base, but betrays his ability to inspire confidence in his ability to accurately define a major world religion.
If he cannot even accurately define a major world religion, what confidence does he inspire re: his ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
Specific citation to above: Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19: I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were ALL corrupt... " LDS cannot just take or leave for this is authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originated as the supposed description of the very foundation of the Lds church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. They claim that this is their "god's" judgment of Christians and their church bodies; they have since translated this into over 100 languages and circulated this nonsense world-wide with millions of copies.
Principle #3:
My 'Principled' Response: NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT.
Additional Points of Considerations:
Principle #4 - WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.
Principle #5: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
Fixed it. Mormon's aren't Christians.
You're saying they advocated waterboarding children as well? That's a pretty serious accusation.
What kind of child abuse do they advocate? I can find nothing online about that book.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
However, one was in fact your post.
Maybe we can get Bean Counter to go to that thread as well as post his "anti-Mormon persecution" post...that way he winds up defending both fLDS and LDS water torturers alike!]Also Post 25:
do you always go into different cult threads discussing how they abuse children and defend those abusers as well?...or does that only apply to fundamentalist Mormons?I would note that attribution of "motive" is a subjective determination. Saying that a post was to defend someone attributes the motive of "defending" to the post, if the poster didn't say they were posting in order to defend something. But you could say that the post has the effect of defending something -- that is an attribute of the words, and does not suggest that the poster had that intention.
So, for example, you could correct the problem in post 25 if, instead of saying "and defend those abusers", you said "and post comments which sound like a defense of the abusers". That way you are giving your opinion on the words in the post, rather than your opinion of the motive of the poster.
I did so privately. It’s meta to the article discussion.
Yes. Giffords was really shot as well, by a real person. And if that person had actually been a Tea Partier, owned copies of Sarah Palin’s book, and had written a treatise on how right-wing talk shows told him to shoot her, it would STILL be blood libel to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the random act of a crazy person.
If there was a directive from the LDS church that led to a series of child abuses regarding excess water drinking, it would be a valid thing to blame on the church. If it was a set of “pastors” of the LDS church that were found to have done so, it may also be a valid discussion to have about the LDS religion.
But saying that because a woman who did a crime was LDS, that it means LDS are in general guilty of the crime, is a form of blood libel.
I’ll use a really old example to explain this better. John Wayne Gacy really murdered a LOT of people. He was also a Roman Catholic. If someone were to post an article about Gacy murdering 27 kids, put it in the RELIGION thread, and labelled it “Catholic-Open”, I would have the same complaint.
I'm going to tackle only the FIRST post you made, to show where the difficulty lies. I may leave it at that, but if I do, it's not because I think you have shown anything. But let's see how this first set goes.
Here is your first example of me "defending FLDS":
(1) May 23, 2008: They [FLDS] took great pains to attempt to practice their religion as they believed in it, without breaking the law. Source: Post #38 Texas seizure of polygamist-sect kids thrown outThis quote is taken out of context. In order to see the context, I'll need to quote from the person I was responding to, and a larger part of the comment than you quoted. Here are those two items:
Post 25: "That we allow freedom to groups who purposely teach disobeying law—just because they call themselves religions—is a sure path to war and anarchy—not liberty."As you can see from context, I was NOT defending their practice of religion. I was arguing that they seemed to work at not deliberately breaking the law, since any provable violation of law would in fact get them thrown in prison.Post 38, in response to post 25:
So far as I can tell, the FLDS cult never issued more than one government-approved marriage certificate per adult male.They believed (wrongly) that God called for men to have more than one wife, so they performed spiritual marriages that were not recognized by the state. They had men sleeping with multiple partners, and fathering children by those multiple partners.
They took great pains to attempt to practice their religion as they believed in it, without breaking the law. People DO get prosecuted for breaking the law.
So far from my argument being that they were right to have multiple marriages, or to defend them, I was saying that they had worked hard to avoid being easily arrested for breaking the law.
The remainder of post 38 further discussed polygamy and the question of how to distinguish between illegally sleeping with multiple women, and "legally" doing it. I even opined that some court might end up saying polygamy (as it is practiced where there is ownly one legal marriage) if there were as many people arguing for it as argue for gay marriage. Lest you think that is a defense, that was just my way of saying what many others have said: the argument courts use to legalize gay marriage would work equally as well for polygamy.
As in most of my arguments, I was defending something. In the case of FLDS, I was defending the rights of people to practice their own religion, so long as it isn't breaking the law, even if we find their religious practices offensive or absurd.
As I know I don't support the fLDS or LDS belief system, I know it is patently absurd to believe I am trying to defend it. If you want to say I am defending the rights of people to believe a false religion, that would be a fact.
But defending someone's right to believe something doesn't defend their beliefs, or illegal acts they engage in.
Having established that I clearly both thought there would be criminal prosecution for illegal acts, and that I supported criminal prosecution for those illegal acts, I certainly would not have wasted the bandwidth to repeat that information every time I attacked some specific act of the state which I found to be wrong.
BTW, I am totally against people committing crimes. But if a police officer catches someone commiting a crime, and while arresting them beats them senseless for no reason, I would argue against the police officer's actions -- and it wouldn't be a defense of the criminal's acts, although it would be a defense of the criminal AGAINST the illegal act of the police officer.
Getting deep in the woods there, Charles...saying that because a mormon who did a nice thing was LDS, that it means all LDS are in general just the "nicest people in the world" which is certainly encouraged by the organization, is a form of characterization...are you in favor of keeping crimes done by members of certain groups OFF the forum? If so, which groups?
Though I don't visit Catholic threads, there has been no let up in the posting of "priest sexual misconduct" that I can see, and remember that since mormonism has a lay clergy the members represent it. They boast about that often enough. There was certainly no "directive from the Vatican encouraging sexual abuse by priests.
As to the thread label, "mormon open" the label is there to show the thread is not a caucus or devotional thread. Since you are an infrequent visitor to the mormon threads, it may be that you have missed that fact.
It may be that you have chosen the role of "political correctness czar" on FR for yourself...at least it has long appeared that way to me.
My statement to you was inappropriate, and I apologize. It’s no business of mine why you post here.
I stand by my subsequent request though that those who generally argue from a religious perspective should try to remember that most of us, most of the time, are using the political site to argue about politics, not for religious purposes.
In my opinion, more than a few freepers, you included, do accuse people making political arguments by raising religious issues (an example for you was in one of your above responses to me where you take my political use of the word “advocate” and question me based on a particular religious use of that term, in a way that suggested that I was religiously supporting something immoral.
In the middle east, the laws forbid the teaching of Christianity, and in some states, the law forbids the practice of Christianity.This country, and it's government, are becoming increasingly secularized. There are already movements afoot to declare strict religious upbringing as a form of child abuse -- if we do not jealously guard our freedom of religion, the day will come sooner than we imagine when the laws of our country will be twisted in that fashion.By your definition, Christianity is not a legitimate religion in those states.
One day, a state/federal leglistature, or maybe a court, will rule that "forcing" children through the Catholic Catachism is a form of child abuse, teaching children to accept as fact fantasies and myths, threatening them psychologically with punishment including hellfire, etc.
We will all then be law-breakers, and they will come to take our children away. That is what I am passionate about, and why I argue against the abuses of the state. It is a threat real enough to me that I am willing to accept that some children will be abused in defense of those rights.
Attack me for that, if you want -- I don't mind the attacks on positions I actually HOLD, only when I am attacked for things I don't even believe. I would rather a few innocent children suffer abuse, torture, and even death, than that all of our innocent children in innocent families be subject to removal by an all-powerful state.
I’ll answer this, and maybe more completely answer the other, when I get a chance. It might not be for a few days. It’s going to take a LOT of words.
In the meantime, I don’t actually see examples of me defending the religious practices of the fLDS, or defending their abuse of children, in any of the quotes you have provided. That was the charge, that I had “rediculous defenses on behalf of the FLDS”.
Which, in fact, is a much more detailed and easily disputed charge. “Behalf of” means on their behest, or at their bidding, or in order to aid them. Nothing you quoted comes close to showing ANY of those things, and you (to your credit) showed several quotes where I clearly indicated my intention was NOT to aid the FLDS.
Clearly, charging me with contradictory statements could be a fun pasttime, but it doesn’t address the charge you made against me.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Thin-skinned (emotional, whiney or mercurial temper) posters are the disruptors on open threads.
it seems the reaction to post #61 one f the bitter fruit is clarifying who they are and proud of their behavior!:)
***
By their fruite ye shall know them
3 Ne. 14: 16-20
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.
2 Ne. 3: 4-7, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 21
4 For behold, thou art the fruit of my loins; and I am a descendant of Joseph who was carried captive into Egypt. And great were the covenants of the Lord which he made unto Joseph.
5 Wherefore, Joseph truly saw our day. And he obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of his loins the Lord God would raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel; not the Messiah, but a branch which was to be broken off, nevertheless, to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord that the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power, unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light—yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom.
6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.
7 Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers.
• • •
11 But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.
12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
• • •
14 And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise;
• • •
18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.
19 And the words which he shall write shall be the words which are expedient in my wisdom should go forth unto the fruit of thy loins. And it shall be as if the fruit of thy loins had cried unto them from the dust; for I know their faith.
• • •
21 Because of their faith their words shall proceed forth out of my mouth unto their brethren who are the fruit of thy loins; and the weakness of their words will I make strong in their faith, unto the remembering of my covenant which I made unto thy fathers.
61 posted on 01/20/2011 4:49:30 AM PST by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
FROM THE RELIGION FORUM MODERATOR:
Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Thin-skinned (emotional, whiney or mercurial temper) posters are the disruptors on open threads.
95 posted on 01/21/2011 9:52:46 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (”Journalists” see no problem with fueling a mass panic over our “political discourse.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies | Report Abuse
That I use FLDS repeatedly should prove that I have no problem with the abbreviation, nor no part in an argument about whether FLDS is allowed to use the LDS initials.
And I've already explained the problem I have with your abbreviation -- it is something that you have to take specific, non-trivial steps to create, and that has the effect of looking to the casual observer as "LDS" rather than "FLDS", which while we can't discuss why you would do that, it is clear that you DO do that.
FLDS and LDS are two different things. In a religious thread about "what's the difference between FLDS and LDS", there'd be plenty of argument over what those differences and similarities are. But using a religious reference in a title that has the effect of misleading people into thinking you are talking about the LDS church when you are talking about the FLDS church is not about discussing those similarities.
You list what you think are key questions, but that is besides the point. You can discuss those all you want, without using a specific set of format symbols in a way that makes it look like you are typing "LDS" when you are typing "FLDS".
And in a discussion about an article that accuses a SPECIFIC church of "fear in babies with torture", I think it is VERY important to distinguish exactly WHICH specific church did so -- typing things so people mistakenly think it was an article about an LDS church does the opposite.
I would hope we agree that if you had put "Church put fear in babies with torture: witness [Catholic - Open], it would be wrong. (well, I guess if you said "Catholic-caucus" it could simply mean that you wanted to have a closed discussion amongst catholics about the article, not that the article was about catholics, but since we don't have an FLDS caucus here, that wouldn't apply).
What I'm not sure is whether you would agree with me that putting "LDS-Open" would have been wrong. But I do think a moderator would have found it wrong.
But the point is, my argument is very specific on this matter, and it deals only with the REPRESENTATION of the abbreviation "FLDS" in a way that makes it look like the abbreviation is "fLDS". Your attempts to find some grand religious meaning behind my argument almost make me want to apologize -- that's a lot more thought you are putting into this than I would have wished on you.
Why do I mess around with this LDS stuff? Five reasons:
I sometimes use "mormon" because I hate using the same phrase over and over. You should not assume that I am making some theological or religious point when I do so.
I don't really care about the religious debate between the FLDS and LDS. My point is that, if you are going to discuss what a particular church is telling it's congregation to DO, the FLDS and LDS are not the same.
Catholics and Presbyterians may both be part of the "christian" community for most discussions, but if we are talking about a proclamation about a doctrinal issue, it is VERY important to identify which of the two specific organizations we are talking about.
Is there any doubt that the article we are supposedly discussing was specifically about charges against the FLDS church?
If I was on a religious forum discussion as a religious matter the differences between the LDS and FLDS, I would have all sorts of opinions on it. I choose NOT to have that argument, or express those opinions, because I find it counterproductive to my purpose on a political forum where I want to bring a broad coalition of people with differing beliefs together to support conservative causes and candidates.
Honey; be consistant.
The Church of Latter-day Saints should be abbreviated:
LdS; right?
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.