Why didn't they just make him wear a scarlet A?

[_beastie]

Bob,

You never corrected my grammar. I was referring to the many, many times you have corrected grammar in general on this board.

Some humor doesn't work well over a computer screen. Are your insults different to you because you're trying to couch them in humor? I'm confused because you state that when an individual descends to insulting, that is a sign of weakness (actually it can be a sign of many other things as well) but yet you do engage in insults quite regularly yourself.

by the way, I wasn't hurt or insulted when you called me a sociopath. I have enjoyed pointing it out ever since. Like you, I enjoy pointing out hypocrisy.

Oh, and I do enjoy your faux mod comments. They are funny, perhaps I should give you more positive reinforcement for that.

[_Mercury]

Merc: Now you've hurt my feelings.

One must have a heart first. I doubt I affected you at all.

I guess ill sit here in my fancy New York hotel room and enjoy my life.

Hmm, Tell Me you Love Me is on HBO right now. Wow! did I just see male ejaculation on cable!? interesting.

[_Always Thinking]

Oh, and I do enjoy your faux mod comments. They are funny, perhaps I should give you more positive reinforcement for that.

OOOOHHHH (slaps forehead).

Now I get it! Bob is doing those mod comments to HIMSELF!!!!

Boy did that sail right over my head...

[_moksha]

The False Mods.

rcrocket

Does this not prove the truth in anonymity?

[_Jason Bourne]

But your post appeared to imply that if one disassociates him/her self from an organization, he/she has no legitimate basis to criticize it (this also appears to be what Jason Bourne has argued elsewhere). This argument is just plain silly.

Actually I think my argument is a bit different. I said that it is disingenuous (I started saying hypocritical but changes my position) of one to use an ethical system that someone believes, but he other person does not, to judge that persons behavior. For example, PP constantly berates those here who my be more a fringer LDS because in his view they are not toeing the line for what he perceives a true LDS should do.. Yet he rejects all that. I find that disingenuous.

However, I am fine with anyone honestly critiquing the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, the republican party, the democrats, the moonies or anything they want though they may not be part of it. To state that one cannot do so really hamstrings any analysis, debate or discussion about most anything in life.

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't care anything about MAD pretense. I don't defend MAD, support it, agree with it and rarely ever read it. It is inane and antithetical to the mission of the Church for providing a platform for the inane. Those who host and moderate that board will probably burn in hell and should have their memberships suspended.

Quite possibly the most hilarious thing I have ever read from you, Bob. This is def. going in my signature line. Thanks!

Dang!!!! You beat me to it!!!!

[_guy sajer]

But your post appeared to imply that if one disassociates him/her self from an organization, he/she has no legitimate basis to criticize it (this also appears to be what Jason Bourne has argued elsewhere). This argument is just plain silly.

Actually I think my argument is a bit different. I said that it is disingenuous (I started saying hypocritical but changes my position) of one to use an ethical system that someone believes, but he other person does not, to judge that persons behavior. For example, PP constantly berates those here who my be more a fringer LDS because in his view they are not toeing the line for what he perceives a true LDS should do.. Yet he rejects all that. I find that disingenuous.

However, I am fine with anyone honestly critiquing the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, the republican party, the democrats, the moonies or anything they want though they may not be part of it. To state that one cannot do so really hamstrings any analysis, debate or discussion about most anything in life.

That's right Jason, I remember. Sorry for lumping you with this.

by the way, I disagree in that I think it fair game to use someone else's own ethical system to critique him; in fact, I think this is one of the most effective ways to demonstrate the disingenuousness of others' arguments. I suspect that you'd find yourself a pretty small minority on this issue, but that's ok.

[_KimberlyAnn]

by the way, I disagree in that I think it fair game to use someone else's own ethical system to critique him; in fact, I think this is one of the most effective ways to demonstrate the disingenuousness of others' arguments. I suspect that you'd find yourself a pretty small minority on this issue, but that's ok.

Guy is right. The best way to examine the behavior of others is to judge them based on their own system of ethics. For instance, it would be wrong to judge the actions of pre-Colombian Native Americans by anyone's ethical system but their own.

I must say, however, that although I do not believe there are many moral absolutes, I do believe there may be a core moral foundation to which all people, regardless of culture, should be held and that not all cultures or systems of ethics are equal. What I'm left wondering, though, is if my belief that murdering the innocent or raping or torturing people is always wrong, regardless of culture, is a product of my own culture or if it's some kind of intrinsic morality - a basic sense of right and wrong - that is built into most human beings. And if there is a basic sense of right and wrong built into most human beings, what is the implication of that?

ARGH! Thinking about such things before I've had my coffee is a bad idea. It's giving me a headache.

KA

[_guy sajer]

Guy is right. The best way to examine the behavior of others is to judge them based on their own system of ethics. For instance, it would be wrong to judge the actions of pre-Colombian Native Americans by anyone's ethical system but their own.

KA

Well, yes and no. Systems of ethics are not always monolithic. There are frequently "enlightened" social critics who espouse ethics different from the mainstream of society, and often, the social critics anticipate the directional change of social ethics/mores.

Apologists, for example, like to excuse the racism of LDS Church leaders by claiming they merely reflected the social mores/biases of their time. Yet, even then, there were "enlightened" commentators who criticized the existing social mores/biases. If these people can see through the petty bigotry of the times, why can't God's annointed who presumably take their marching orders from God rather than the "typical" member of society.

In general, people who claim a "higher" source for their beliefs and morals, they should be held accountable to the higher morals and not the morals of mainstream society.

[_Jason Bourne]

And, if you say, the Church wishes to hide facts from its members, who are you to criticize that? You say you have resigned from the Church. You lack any standing to criticize church discliplinary procedure, as well as you lack standing to condemn the Elks for wearing funny hats as a condition for membership.

A couple of comments. First, I think anyone has a right to opine and criticize anything really. Of course the criticisim can be ignore. Of course the Church has a right to set terms of membership as well as discipline members in regards to membership and fellowship. And that standard can be thought of in a variety of ways. People can think it lovely, or ludicrous. Yet the Church retains that right. It also must understand that people will decide whether the way the Church deals with these issues is something that can support or dissent about. It will influence whether people remain LDS or opt to become LDS or not as well as what they say about the Church over a cup of hot chocolate, coffee, a beer or a diet coke with a friend if the topic comes up. So of course people can criticize or support it whether they are a member or not. They just may not be able to influence it all that much.


Now as an aside, or maybe a direct point. Don't you find it odd that the Church would discipline a member for taling about facts of history? Keep in mind that you are very much opposed to hypocrisy. What is one to think when the Church asks and even requires a high level on honesty of it members in order to enter the holiest place the religion yet it would discipline a member for speaking facts?

Of course I will concede I do not know HOW this fellow was going about it but Bob, you see, this is one reason I am an anonymous hypocrite. I cannot really talk to my fellow members about my concerns about the history and the way I perceive the Church down plays that history without fear of repercussion and I am not willing to take that repercussion at this point. However, as noted, both my bishop and my SP know of my concerns so that is all the matters to me.