Plutarch wrote:The Mister Scratches, Harmonys and Rollos of the world are in a very very bad position with the man upstairs, I would estimate. But I am not their judge; I am an observer.
You may not be our judge, but you are certainly judgmental. And, pray tell, how are we "in a very very bad position with the man upstairs"? Are you so fearful of open and honest discussion and debate that you honestly believe that God, whose "glory is intelligence," will punish us for expressing ideas, opinions, beliefs, concerns, observations, etc.?
It's interesting that promising people exaltation in exchange for their daughters does not affect one's standing "with the man upstairs," but frank discussion about the LDS church puts one in a "very very bad position."
And why am I hearing that guy from the CapitalOne commercial? Very! Very! Very! Bad position!
Those who post here anonymously who also claim to be members of the Church in good standing (I am not so worked up about those who don't) fear retribution from their bishops or stake presidents in the form of action on their membership. If they use their real names, they know that some day somebody (not me, but somebody) might report them to their priesthood leader. This is not different than the example I have provided above. These are cowards and hypocrites.
Thanks for the question, but your fellow posters will cringe as you are just humoring me.
You know I have been thinking about this and I do feel somewhat hypocritical. Really, I do. On the other hand those yousay we fear retribution from, at least in my case, know any of the criticisims I post here. This is because I have discussed them with my bishop and SP. In fact, my SP has some of the same criticisms or maybe better put, concerns. But he has put them on the shelf, that in his words.
So yea, in a way I am a damned hypocrite. But as noted before, those who count know my thoughts and nothing here that I post would be news to them.
No. You're here to ferret out dissenters, so they can be disciplined by the Church. Who are you working for, Bob?
George Bush and the Neocons. Plutarch was actually part of the inner circle of corporate controlled, pro-Zionist Mormons who helped plant the explosive charges that brought the Tiwn Towers down. Once he ferrets out enough dissenting Mormons so they can be sent to Guantanimo and held indefinately and have all thier old issues of Dialog flushed down the toilet, the Morg will make its move toward world domination. Plutarch is the vangaurd of the glorious revolutionary Mormon future.
Plutarch wrote:The Mister Scratches, Harmonys and Rollos of the world are in a very very bad position with the man upstairs, I would estimate. But I am not their judge; I am an observer.
You may not be our judge, but you are certainly judgmental. And, pray tell, how are we "in a very very bad position with the man upstairs"? Are you so fearful of open and honest discussion and debate that you honestly believe that God, whose "glory is intelligence," will punish us for expressing ideas, opinions, beliefs, concerns, observations, etc.?
As I have said so many times before, I am not "fearful of open and honest discussion" about the Church. Bring it on. I learn from it. There is so much to learn. To paraphrase John Connolly, I am no DCP.
Judgmental? How does one point out cowardly hypocrisy without being judgmental? How does one criticize the performance of Eli Manning on Sunday without being judgmental?
Yes, I believe you will be condemned for making posts critical of the Church and the Brethren and, at the same time, doing it anonymously and saying you are a faithful member of the Church. But, I too will be condemned for other things for which repentence is an on-going requirement for endurance, so there you have it. For what it is worth. Nothing to you, apparently. I have convinced no one.
Those who post here anonymously who also claim to be members of the Church in good standing (I am not so worked up about those who don't) fear retribution from their bishops or stake presidents in the form of action on their membership. If they use their real names, they know that some day somebody (not me, but somebody) might report them to their priesthood leader. This is not different than the example I have provided above. These are cowards and hypocrites.
Thanks for the question, but your fellow posters will cringe as you are just humoring me.
You know I have been thinking about this and I do feel somewhat hypocritical. Really, I do. On the other hand those yousay we fear retribution from, at least in my case, know any of the criticisims I post here. This is because I have discussed them with my bishop and SP. In fact, my SP has some of the same criticisms or maybe better put, concerns. But he has put them on the shelf, that in his words.
So yea, in a way I am a damned hypocrite. But as noted before, those who count know my thoughts and nothing here that I post would be news to them.
One question-what about when I defend?
There is a difference between discussing your criticisms with your bishop and stake president, on the one hand, and making anonymous critical posts on the other hand. I have frequent discussions with those who doubt, and I am very glad to have discussions on difficult topics with church members.
When you defend the church anonymously, you are just a coward, not a cowardly hypocrite. (As well, when a former member comes on this Board and posts anonymously against the Church, he or she is just a coward.) I am condemning only cowardly hypocrites.
Those who post here anonymously who also claim to be members of the Church in good standing (I am not so worked up about those who don't) fear retribution from their bishops or stake presidents in the form of action on their membership. If they use their real names, they know that some day somebody (not me, but somebody) might report them to their priesthood leader. This is not different than the example I have provided above. These are cowards and hypocrites.
Thanks for the question, but your fellow posters will cringe as you are just humoring me.
You know I have been thinking about this and I do feel somewhat hypocritical. Really, I do. On the other hand those yousay we fear retribution from, at least in my case, know any of the criticisims I post here. This is because I have discussed them with my bishop and SP. In fact, my SP has some of the same criticisms or maybe better put, concerns. But he has put them on the shelf, that in his words.
So yea, in a way I am a damned hypocrite. But as noted before, those who count know my thoughts and nothing here that I post would be news to them.
One question-what about when I defend?
There is a difference between discussing your criticisms with your bishop and stake president, on the one hand, and making anonymous critical posts on the other hand. I have frequent discussions with those who doubt, and I am very glad to have discussions on difficult topics with church members.
When you defend the church anonymously, you are just a coward, not a cowardly hypocrite. (As well, when a former member comes on this Board and posts anonymously against the Church, he or she is just a coward.) I am condemning only cowardly hypocrites.
P
Well I am agreeing with you. I am a cowardly hypocrite in some cases then.
Jason Bourne wrote:Well I am agreeing with you. I am a cowardly hypocrite in some cases then.
I take it your stake pres or bishop can't resolve your issues? In the area where I live no stake pres or bishop could resolve major issues, basically being businessmen, but there are one or two "experts" they can call upon to discuss things.
Jason Bourne wrote:Well I am agreeing with you. I am a cowardly hypocrite in some cases then.
I take it your stake pres or bishop can't resolve your issues? In the area where I live no stake pres or bishop could resolve major issues, basically being businessmen, but there are one or two "experts" they can call upon to discuss things.
P
I can sympathize. When I went to my bishop with my issues, he had no clue what I was talking about. Neither did the stake president. I'm not aware of any resident "experts" here in Central Texas.
By Plutarch's logic, there are tens of thousands of LDS missionary "cowards" who generally do not to give out their full name, or at the least, are encouraged by the Church not to. I wonder if that makes the Church cowardly too, since they are representatives of it.
dartagnan wrote:By Plutarch's logic, there are tens of thousands of LDS missionary "cowards" who generally do not to give out their full name, or at the least, are encouraged by the Church not to. I wonder if that makes the Church cowardly too, since they are representatives of it.
In one day you have equated Mormon bishops to Islamic assassins, and Mormon missionaries to spineless cowards. You've done well in reducing an argument to the absolute absurd. What's next? Pres. Hinckley is Hitler? [My own reductio ad absurdem!] Reducing one's argument to the absurd persuades the moron, but nobody else.