Missionary charged with abusing 12-year-old convert

[_Zakuska]

Except that a missionary acts as an ambassador for the LDS Church. I agree that personal decisions shouldn't have an impact on a corporations err religions finances, but that is beside the point. A legal precedence was achieved in the mid-90's when several families successfully sued the Catholic church (their local Diocese I believe) for millions of dollars. In that now famous ruling, the church was held legally responsible for the priests actions. As a missionary is on the churchs payroll, and has alot of the same responsibilities, I think the family could successfuly sue the LDS church if they were so inclined to do so.

Hmmm... funny... my Parents and I paid 24 months @ $400.00 = $9600.00 + Preperation Expesnses out of our own Pockets for me to serve my mission. Why wasn't I informed there was 'free money' payrole involved. :rolleyes:

[_Notoriuswun]

Hmmm... funny... my Parents and I paid 24 months @ $400.00 = $9600.00 + Preperation Expesnses out of our own Pockets for me to serve my mission. Why wasn't I informed there was 'free money' payrole involved. :rolleyes:

That doesn't matter in the slightest to the quote you posted. All it suggests is that Catholics pay for their proselytizing from their own coffers, while Mormons must foot the bill themselves while still padding the LDS coffers. I'll let you figure out who is getting shafted in the above scenario.

Realistically, a comparison between a Catholic priest and a LDS missionary is very appropriate (they both serve their religious entities above all else), and legally, the same comparisons will be argued over if the victim does decides to sue.

[_Zakuska]

Which follows the scriptural presidence?

"Script, nor purse"

[_Runtu]

Which follows the scriptural presidence?

"Script, nor purse"

One of my pet peeves: it's "scrip," not "script." It means a small wallet or bag. Carry on.

[_Notoriuswun]

Which follows the scriptural presidence?

"Script, nor purse"

I see you have utterly failed at delving any meaning from that oft-quoted scripture in Luke.

[_Coggins7]

It has alot to do with this debate, as typically those on the religious right will attempt to group sexual perversion (ie pedophiles, necrophiliacs, beastiality) into the same group as homosexuality. It hasn't been displayed thus far in this thread, but Bond mentioned that it did happen at MAD.

I would be willing to bet that if you were to ask, a majority of the MORGdom would equate the two, and not only that, but that they would also recommend similar "punishments"...and this is my personal opinion before you go all crazy on me.

Finally, I am glad that at least you have the insight to see that the two subjects aren't related.

Homosexuality very much is a sexual perversion, from the point of view of Jedeo/Christian moral and social philosophy, but that does not group it with fetishes or peculiar sexual obsessions such a necrophelia or beastiality. Pedophilia, despite decades of Gay lobby propaganda, is a particularly acute preoccupation in the Gay community (and interestingly, 354 words out of 12,000 in the Queen's Vernacular are directly related to sexual attraction to or sex with young boys (mostly variations of the "chicken" theme, in one manner or another)

Your claim that most faithful Mormons would recommed casteration, or any legal sanction, unless that person has committed some actual crime, sounds like a paranoid fantasy. At best, its a subsitute for rational engagement with the "religiious right".

As a Libertarian/Conservative myself, I support no "punishments" for private homosexual behavior, but still consider it a sin and, as a mass social phenomena, dangerous, at some point, to the continuation of a free and civil society. But again, that occurs on another level from private behavior as such.

[_Mister Scratch]

It has alot to do with this debate, as typically those on the religious right will attempt to group sexual perversion (ie pedophiles, necrophiliacs, beastiality) into the same group as homosexuality. It hasn't been displayed thus far in this thread, but Bond mentioned that it did happen at MAD.

I would be willing to bet that if you were to ask, a majority of the MORGdom would equate the two, and not only that, but that they would also recommend similar "punishments"...and this is my personal opinion before you go all crazy on me.

Finally, I am glad that at least you have the insight to see that the two subjects aren't related.

Homosexuality very much is a sexual perversion, from the point of view of Jedeo/Christian moral and social philosophy, but that does not group it with fetishes or peculiar sexual obsessions such a necrophelia or beastiality.

How do you figure? The kind of "moral and social philosophy" embraced by you and your ilk absolutely tries to group these things together. Did you not just say, on your "Consensual Immorality" thread, that anything other than hetero, procreative sex is "an abomination"?

Pedophilia, despite decades of Gay lobby propaganda, is a particularly acute preoccupation in the Gay community

And your evidence for this is? The smacks of cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. After all, google searches for "porn" seem to be a "particularly acute preoccupation" in Mormon Utah.

(and interestingly, 354 words out of 12,000 in the Queen's Vernacular are directly related to sexual attraction to or sex with young boys (mostly variations of the "chicken" theme, in one manner or another)

Your claim that most faithful Mormons would recommed casteration, or any legal sanction, unless that person has committed some actual crime, sounds like a paranoid fantasy. At best, its a subsitute for rational engagement with the "religiious right".

This has its basis in fact. There were a number of instances in which early LDS leaders had "offenders" castrated, in some instances as the result of orders from BY.

As a Libertarian/Conservative myself, I support no "punishments" for private homosexual behavior, but still consider it a sin and, as a mass social phenomena, dangerous, at some point, to the continuation of a free and civil society. But again, that occurs on another level from private behavior as such.

You don't want to "punish" homosexuality, but see it as "dangerous"? Am I wrong, or does this smack of hypocrisy?

[_Coggins7]

Just a note: I'm not going to even attempt any further debate with Scratch. If he wants to do his own homework on the prevalence of pedohpila in the homosexual subculture, Judith Reisman has done much work in this area, and as to the prevelance of S&M, aggressive promiscuity, and other fetishes among male homosexuals, The Gay Tapes would be a good place to start. We actually know quite a lot about what goes on in the Gay subculture from both some major studies (some done as far back as the sixties, such as the famous diary studies) and from the literature and popular culture produced by that subculture itself, which, outside of the "Gay Rights" movement, much of whose statements and positions have historically been created for straight public consumption, are remarkably honest about the nature of "Gay" life.

Scratch wan'ts me to do hours of research for this forum to satisfy him as to my veracity as a critic of this and that, at which point I will be again dismissed as a sub-human cretin. Sorry, Charlie Brown isn't going to kick the football again.

[_Mister Scratch]

Just a note: I'm not going to even attempt any further debate with Scratch. If he wants to do his own homework on the prevalence of pedohpila in the homosexual subculture,

I am aware of "gay boy" fetishes, where youthful-looking gay males adults are seen as beautiful, but the link between being a gay man and a pedophiliac sex predator seems tendentious at best.

Judith Reisman has done much work in this area,

I will take a look.

and as to the prevelance of S&M, aggressive promiscuity, and other fetishes among male homosexuals, The Gay Tapes would be a good place to start. We actually know quite a lot about what goes on in the Gay subculture from both some major studies (some done as far back as the sixties, such as the famous diary studies) and from the literature and popular culture produced by that subculture itself, which, outside of the "Gay Rights" movement, much of whose statements and positions have historically been created for straight public consumption, are remarkably honest about the nature of "Gay" life.

I am aware of all of this.... I actually have read some of Gayle Rubin's unpublished (last I checked, anyhow) work on the gay male leather subculture in San Francisco. So, I'm not sure what your point is. What I fail to understand is how or why any of this research supports your thesis that homosexuality is "evil" or "dangerous to society." Would you care to explain that?

Scratch wan'ts me to do hours of research for this forum to satisfy him as to my veracity as a critic of this and that, at which point I will be again dismissed as a sub-human cretin. Sorry, Charlie Brown isn't going to kick the football again.

No, Loran. You get called "a sub-human cretin" when you continuously toss out ad hominem attacks and paint all of your opponents and deluded, uneducated, and unintelligent liberal whiners. (I cannot count the number of times you have called me "intellectually dishonest," or whatever else.)

The bottom line is that your thesis vis-a-vis homosexuality as "dangerous" or "evil" doesn't hold water.

[_Notoriuswun]

Homosexuality very much is a sexual perversion, from the point of view of Jedeo/Christian moral and social philosophy, but that does not group it with fetishes or peculiar sexual obsessions such a necrophelia or beastiality.

Agreed...but that doesn't make it right, and from a secular point of view, it is wrong.

Pedophilia, despite decades of Gay lobby propaganda, is a particularly acute preoccupation in the Gay community.

This is a generalization as well that has no basis in reality. I URGE you to find any real statistics that prove this assertion.

Your claim that most faithful Mormons would recommed casteration, or any legal sanction, unless that person has committed some actual crime, sounds like a paranoid fantasy. At best, its a subsitute for rational engagement with the "religiious right"..

It was a generalization, agreed, which is why I said that it was my personal opinion.

As a Libertarian/Conservative myself, I support no "punishments" for private homosexual behavior, but still consider it a sin and, as a mass social phenomena, dangerous, at some point, to the continuation of a free and civil society. But again, that occurs on another level from private behavior as such.

Good to see a fellow Libertarian here...I personally view homosexuality as a naturally occuring phenomenon that takes place in 8-12% of the general population, and also that it is biological. I am also glad that you place civil liberties higher than religous zealotry.