Another REALLY stupid thread at MAD
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:09 am
Unbelievable stuff again tonight.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58979-why-the-need-to-do-this/page__st__20
Here are some of the highlights.
Are you kidding? That exactly describes the LDS church?
Looks like Happy got banned over this. I guess even MAD has enough sense to ban some of these crazies when they become nothing but an embarrassment to the church and apologists.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58979-why-the-need-to-do-this/page__st__20
Here are some of the highlights.
Lightbearer said: If anyone is sexualizing children it is certainly not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the leadership. It is the corrupt society we live in that calls evil good and good evil... it condemns those who strive to keep the commandments of God. It also thinks that a "villiage" should raise our children instead of loving, righteous parents who have faith in the Lord and His Church instead of the philosophies and teachings of men. You cannot start too young teaching modesty and chastity, if you wait until age 12 it is too late.. This child should not have been publicly corrected (if that happened), instead the parents (the one responsible for how minors act and dress) are the one's who should have been taught the correct principles and they are obligated to bring up their children in light and truth. Oh and by the way nothing has changed in Church policy, sundresses have always been taboo in Church even when I was in primary (over 40 years ago!) So please stop throwing mud against the Church just for the sake of "kicking against the pricks." Oh and as for the beard comment to prove the church standards change, it has always been such in a church that has current revelation. I suppose in Brighams time beards were considered respectable (in my generation it is associated with the hippy counterculture) So if their is a tightening of standards of dress it is a reaction to the abominable customs of the 20th and 21st century.
Are you kidding? That exactly describes the LDS church?
Wade Englund wrote: From what I can tell, Tacenda is simply looking for even the least reason to sneer at the Church and/or its members, presumably to feel better about herself. If so, then consistency tends to be against this objective and is too oft set aside.
Happy wrote: And to think if the parents were following the rules, the kid would never have been humiliated. That's the real part of the story, is it not? That the parents put their kid in that dress knowing there was a dress code that has existed forever. Reminds me of the parents who are shocked when their kids play violent video games, only to find the parent bought the game in the first place.
Right. So how far shall we go? I see a lot of little girls in rather racy and frankly disturbing clothes. But as long as they are under 12, that's ok? I am failing to see the logic here. And a Young Woman Leader is very much in her bounds to point out people being immodest.
Or do you find girls under 12 in sexuality charged outfits OK in the chapel?
Picture deleted. Happy has left the forum for inappropriate behavior. -Ares.
(This image is from Toddler's and Tiaras on TLC.)
Looks like Happy got banned over this. I guess even MAD has enough sense to ban some of these crazies when they become nothing but an embarrassment to the church and apologists.
