What good does it do to criticize?

[_Doctor Steuss]

When Emma was really sick - Joseph took her out and repeatedly baptized her - go figure.

I’m not 100% sure what this comment of yours is meant to convey, so I’m going to simply use this as an opportunity to pontificate…

During the formative years of the Church, rebaptism was often used as a "faith-healing" tool. The power/magical qualities of water have been a long standing tradition in not only Christianity, but in Judaism and in many other ANE cults. Even to this day I often hear Faith-Promoting Rumor’s regarding someone having something “healed” while performing baptisms for the dead.

[Guest]

It is always important to know why someone says something. Don't you do that with all apologists? You say their reason for writing/speaking, etc. is to protect the faith, so you don't believe them to be credible.

No, I've never said that. I think they aren't credible when they're making assertions that aren't credible.

Do you ever see a credible statement coming from an apologist?

It never ceases to amaze me how much people either don't read, or else read into, what I post. And how people are unable to not take statements and personalize them. Take, for instance, the "exposed flaws" thing you just mentioned. Exposing flaws in logic is NOT insutling. Telling a person they are too stupid to be able to see the flaws in their argument IS insulting them. I never do the latter.

The point is, charity, you WEREN'T EXPOSING FLAWS IN MY ARGUMENT. YOU WERE INSULTING ME.

READ YOUR OWN WORDS I QUOTED. I want you to look in particular at your words that I bolded:

charity:
Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(

Do you attend to context? Flying spaghetti monsters! That was insulting the discussion and I made a sarcastic comment back. Do you really think I thought the poster was serious about flying spaghetti monesters?

charity:
You must need words of shorter syllables.


I don't remember the context there. Flying spaghetti monsters again?

charity:
marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

If you can sit there and say, and BELIEVE, that telling someone they will have to "dumb down their posts" for them, and they need "words of shorter 'syllables'" are not INSULTS then you are really living in fantasy land.

The latter statement to marg, about being told lies by people "in whom there is no truth" and are "satan's minions" was not directed at me personally, but in the conversation, was clearly meant to describe critics of the church.

The trick here, beastie, is that no one who falls into the categories I described needs to feel insulted. And anyone who does fit into those categories can't be insulted if it is the truth. The claim against being insulting is the same for slander and libel. The truth is the perfect defense.

So you have no call to feel insulted, in any case.

[_karl61]

When Emma was really sick - Joseph took her out and repeatedly baptized her - go figure.

I’m not 100% sure what this comment of yours is meant to convey, so I’m going to simply use this as an opportunity to pontificate…

During the formative years of the Church, rebaptism was often used as a "faith-healing" tool. The power/magical qualities of water have been a long standing tradition in not only Christianity, but in Judaism and in many other ANE cults. Even to this day I often hear Faith-Promoting Rumor’s regarding someone having something “healed” while performing baptisms for the dead.

I guess one of the ways to get the youth to do baptisms for the dead would be to tell them that their acne will go away for a least a month as a result ......

[_beastie]

The trick here, beastie, is that no one who falls into the categories I described needs to feel insulted. And anyone who does fit into those categories can't be insulted if it is the truth. The claim against being insulting is the same for slander and libel. The truth is the perfect defense.

So you have no call to feel insulted, in any case.

LOL! This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on the net. Too bad it's too long for a sig line.

Just remember, boys and girls, that since Charity is RIGHT about what she says about us, then none of it counts as insults!

I really DO need words of "shorter syllables"!! Charity really DOES need to "dumb down her posts" for me!!! Truth is the perfect defense! We really ARE lying, satan's minions!!!

Here's another "truth" for you, charity - if you are as resistant to admitting your errors or flaws in REAL life as you are on the internet, you must be h**l to live with.

[_charity]

The trick here, beastie, is that no one who falls into the categories I described needs to feel insulted. And anyone who does fit into those categories can't be insulted if it is the truth. The claim against being insulting is the same for slander and libel. The truth is the perfect defense.

So you have no call to feel insulted, in any case.

LOL! This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on the net. Too bad it's too long for a sig line.

Just remember, boys and girls, that since Charity is RIGHT about what she says about us, then none of it counts as insults!

I really DO need words of "shorter syllables"!! Charity really DOES need to "dumb down her posts" for me!!! Truth is the perfect defense! We really ARE lying, satan's minions!!!

I always believe self-identification.

Here's another "truth" for you, charity - if you are as resistant to admitting your errors or flaws in REAL life as you are on the internet, you must be h**l to live with.

Now, that is an insult because there is no truth in any part of the sentence. I admit my errors and flaws, and I am a cream puff to live with. Self-identification.

[_beastie]

By now, nothing Charity can say can really shock or surprise me, but this one comes close.

Just to clarify, Charity, in the posts I quoted from you were direct comments TO me. You stated TO ME that you were going to have to "dumb down" your posts for me and use words of "shorter syllables".

So I'm giving you the chance to clarify, because it's hard to believe these words are coming out of your mouth, even though you are Charity:

Are you actually asserting that since these statements (that you need to "dumb down" your posts for me and I need words of "shorter syllables") are actually TRUE, they are not insults?

[Reflexzero]

I guess one of the ways to get the youth to do baptisms for the dead would be to tell them that their acne will go away for a least a month as a result ......

After the rejection of my mission papers, I was inactive for quite some time. Upon return to activity (after that particular stint of inactivity) I was certain that if I did baptisms for the dead, the tattoos I had received during my period of heathenism (that I was quite ashamed of at the time) would be removed. After multiple trips to the temple, and being baptized for countless people, they remained. As an immature rebellion tactic, I became inactive again and got several more tattoos. I hope that the youth would not go out and rub Crisco on their faces to get more acne in order to rebel after receiving the same disappointment as myself.

Then again, upon reflection I discovered that I unfortunately had the faith of an orange seed in lieu of a mustard seed. I thought the similarities in color of the end product would be enough. I guess that in this case the letter of the law overruled the spirit of the law.

[_Mercury]

Once, you get to repent. Twice you don't.

Whoa. Where did that come from? I'd really like to see a reference for that, please. Because my understanding of the atonement is it's there to be used as many times as necessary.

If a person has been excommunicated for adultery once, and then committ adultery a second time, they cannot be rebaptized and their blessings restored.

Doctrine and Covenants 42: 24-26 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out. But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it ano more, thou shalt forgive; But if he doeth it aagain, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

This is what always perplexed me about control cults such as Mormonism: Exclusivity and triviality are flipped on their heads

[_Doctor Steuss]

Here's another "truth" for you, charity - if you are as resistant to admitting your errors or flaws in REAL life as you are on the internet, you must be h**l to live with.

I often sit in the corner due to my cowardly aspects, and recognition that my substandard education makes me a Lilliputian amongst Gullivers. But in this case, from my personal dealings with Charity, I'm sure that she is the type of person that one would most likely be lucky to consider a friend.

I hate exposing my sissy-nanny-esque side as more than anything else, it reveals my own hypocrisy. But, I believe that our perception of posts may not necessarily reflect the actuality of the person behind the posts.

I am sorry Beastie that I singled in on this post, as I’m sure (much like I know I have done to Don, Uncle Dale, Chris Smith, Rhinomelon, and CKSalmon [amongst many others]) that there have been instances where you have been similarly categorized, and I should have spoken up (not that you need my pitiful “speak-up-ums”)… and I seem to be painting myself in a corner here, so I guess I will shut up and pray for mercy.

[_skippy the dead]

By now, nothing Charity can say can really shock or surprise me, but this one comes close.

Just to clarify, Charity, in the posts I quoted from you were direct comments TO me. You stated TO ME that you were going to have to "dumb down" your posts for me and use words of "shorter syllables".

So I'm giving you the chance to clarify, because it's hard to believe these words are coming out of your mouth, even though you are Charity:

Are you actually asserting that since these statements (that you need to "dumb down" your posts for me and I need words of "shorter syllables") are actually TRUE, they are not insults?

Yes, of course. Much like if someone has a fat ass, and we call them a "fat ass", it is not insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE! Or if someone is born of an unwed mother, and we call them a "bastard", it's not an insult BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!

See how silly this position is?