Question for Plutarch

[_harmony]

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.

P

His point is valid, Plu. Missionaries do not give their names to investigators. And no doubt in your own time, you will address that validity. Until then, you prefer to attack the messenger, not the message. Thus once again we all remain true to our core.

[_Jason Bourne]

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

Actually My SP has helped a lot by helping me see I can have these questions and concerns and still remain and active participant. He has done so by letting me know he has had many of the same questions having run into many of the things I have struggled with maybe 15 years ago or so. He is the one who encouraged me to read writings by Lowell Bennion and Eugene Englund. So, yes there has been help. On the other hand, if we talk about hypocrisy, I struggle to see how he can "shelve"items that I used to be able to shelve but struggle with doing so now.

Many days I feel in a major conundrum

[_rcrocket]

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.

P

His point is valid, Plu. Missionaries do not give their names to investigators. And no doubt in your own time, you will address that validity. Until then, you prefer to attack the messenger, not the message. Thus once again we all remain true to our core.

Read my last sentence.

[_harmony]

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.

P

His point is valid, Plu. Missionaries do not give their names to investigators. And no doubt in your own time, you will address that validity. Until then, you prefer to attack the messenger, not the message. Thus once again we all remain true to our core.

Read my last sentence.

I assumed you simply misspelled the word, as per usual.

Name calling is beneath you, Plu. But I'll say this for you: you never disappoint.

[_rcrocket]

Name calling is beneath you, Plu. But I'll say this for you: you never disappoint.

Those two sentences seem inconsistent.

P

[_dartagnan]

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.

I never compared bishops to assassins... what in the blue hell are you talking about? You have maintained here that anyone who decides to share opinions without providing enough background information so someone could hold them accountable, are in fact "cowards." I am simply telling you what your logic dictates since you seem unable to figure it out on your own. You have pretty much rendered LDS missionaries cowards. Here is the part where you try to find refuge in a double-standard.

Reducing one's argument to the absurd persuades the moron, but nobody else.

Is that why you're only supporters are Wade and the three cackling hens at MAD?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

But yet your posts have little substance. By and large, your posts are one-liners or personal attacks on individual posters. And a growing number of your posts deal with your apparent obsession with branding any anonymous poster a hypocrite. But rarely do you ever engage the substance of the ongoing debate or message. Yes, there is much to learn, but you seem to care more about attacking the messenger, rather than address and learn from the message.

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?

But why are you fixated with this? Why not just join the debate and discussion; that's what this bb is for. You seem to waste a lot of your time coming here just to attack individual posters, rather than engage in invigorating debate and discussion.

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.

What you see as "criticial" I see as free speech, open debate, and using the intelligence God gave each man and woman to explore any matter relating to Mormonism or anything else. You act as if a subject you deem "critical" is evil or wrong -- it's not, but simply part of the discourse in investigating and searching for truth, wherever it be found.

I have convinced no one.

I dare say you haven't even convinced yourself. At one time your posts involved real substance, but have morphed over time into attacks on posters, not the subject itself. Perhaps this is because you've been 'handed your hat,' as it were, in too many debates, and are simply lashing out toward those you perceive as 'enemies.' We are not enemies, just human beings trying to make sense of that around us, including our experiences in the LDS Church.

[_Sam Harris]

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?

What is open and honest to you? That which agrees with your stance? That which pats you on the back?

How can you call people hypocrites here when you haven't revealed who YOU are?

I think that if you want to call people out for doing something, the first thing you need to do is make sure you're not doing the same.

So, Name, Location, Phone so we can call and see if you're really who you are.

Hell, at least I posted links to my MSN space, so your buddies will stop calling me an anti-mormon caucasian person.

[_Sam Harris]

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.

But yet your posts have little substance. By and large, your posts are one-liners or personal attacks on individual posters. And a growing number of your posts deal with your apparent obsession with branding any anonymous poster a hypocrite. But rarely do you ever engage the substance of the ongoing debate or message. Yes, there is much to learn, but you seem to care more about attacking the messenger, rather than address and learn from the message.

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?

But why are you fixated with this? Why not just join the debate and discussion; that's what this bb is for. You seem to waste a lot of your time coming here just to attack individual posters, rather than engage in invigorating debate and discussion.

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.

What you see as "criticial" I see as free speech, open debate, and using the intelligence God gave each man and woman to explore any matter relating to Mormonism or anything else. You act as if a subject you deem "critical" is evil or wrong -- it's not, but simply part of the discourse in investigating and searching for truth, wherever it be found.

I have convinced no one.

I dare say you haven't even convinced yourself. At one time your posts involved real substance, but have morphed over time into attacks on posters, not the subject itself. Perhaps this is because you've been 'handed your hat,' as it were, in too many debates, and are simply lashing out toward those you perceive as 'enemies.' We are not enemies, just human beings trying to make sense of that around us, including our experiences in the LDS Church.

And that (Rollo) dear friends, is why I don't see the LDS church as a complete and utter failure. With folks like this as members, in time things will change. Rollo et al, I respect you, for you are much stronger than me. Your motives for staying might be different than mine were at one time, but you are what will make the Plutarchs of the church an endangered species (thank God!).

[_Mercury]

You are just mushing together two different concepts to help advance your argument.

"Identity theft" under the law is the use of one's name to obtain one's assets. Let's say your real name is Liz Jones. If you started posting as Liz Jones, this would be no different than signing up as Liz Jones to help at your kid's school; signing up as Liz Jones to work in a Boys and Girls Club, or signing up as an employee who serves the public. The public will learn your name in all sorts of contexts.

If you are truly concerned with "identity theft," that does not justify cowardly hypocritical posts (I am not necessarily tagging you with this problem) attacking living persons and the Church while claiming to be a member of the Church. Better off posting nothing than being a coward and a hypocrite.

Let's say you worked for Zions' Bank in Utah and you had a boss. He is married, a Church leader and you learn he is having an office affair. You don't like him. If you get rid of him, you might get his job. You get on local blogs or web sites or a blog dedicated to criticizing Zion's Bank (there are plenty like that against many different businesses) anonymously and post hit pieces against him and his affair. You reason that using your real name will protect you from identify theft even though what you are saying is true (and thus not defamation). You are a coward and a hypocrite because if you know that you use your real name you would likely be fired.

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.


P

How the F**k did you pass the LSAT's?