charity wrote:Isaiah 5: 20-21 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
But what if we are calling evil evil, darkness darkness, and bitter bitter? It is still a criticism to say so, right?
And, just for the record, Joseph Smith was evil and you call him good. Woe unto you indeed.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
why me wrote:The apostle Paul warns against bickering in the church. He counsels to be of one mind. And this is important. We see from the mainstream chruches just what bickering creates. It creates division and splits. Not healthy in my opinion. Now I don't believe that the GA was refering to constructive criticism where the spirit is present. But to the other kind, the more devisive form that creates bad feelings and ill intent.
I watched the PBS special and heard the comment from Bro. Oaks. It surprised me that a seasoned lawyer would make a blunt statement like that. It also seems a little out of context. Is it possible the PBS editing could have changed his meaning?
charity wrote:Isaiah 5: 20-21 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
But what if we are calling evil evil, darkness darkness, and bitter bitter? It is still a criticism to say so, right?
And, just for the record, Joseph Smith was evil and you call him good. Woe unto you indeed.
Remember, Scottie, I am only deluded, delusional, blind, fooled, etc. IF I am wrong.
charity wrote:Isaiah 5: 20-21 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
But what if we are calling evil evil, darkness darkness, and bitter bitter? It is still a criticism to say so, right?
And, just for the record, Joseph Smith was evil and you call him good. Woe unto you indeed.
Remember, Scottie, I am only deluded, delusional, blind, fooled, etc. IF I am wrong.
You say this with humor to deflect the sad reality of those words.
And your ARE wrong--no IF a bout it. You always throw out your taudry IF to taunt people with your personal faith. You enjoy it because it is your "ace" in the hole. No one can argue with your subjective experience, so just vomit it up every time the ridiculousness of your viewpoint is directly challenged.
... The leaders of the LDS Church are deceivers of the worst kind. They are the wolves in sheep's clothing who preach, "Beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing." What is more dangerous than that? Charity is both deceived and a deceiver in the same deception and I believe on some level she knows it. She simply enjoys her game. I'm sorry, but if there is such a thing as evil, that is it.
Charity argues from a completely unfalsifiable position which is immune to reason. So discussing anything with her will inevitably go in eternal circles.
She hypocritically demands rational evidence when her entire position is ultimately founded on that which is not amenable to rational evidence.
She and her church are in great need of critical analysis and even ridicule. Just as it excites Charity to think of all the people whom, she believes, will get their well deserved "I told you sos" on the "other side," I too wish to see some justice when it comes to the lame claims of the apologists and their insincere ilk, including Charity. There is just too much human suffering around the issue of religion and especially the LDS religion to not want to have the situation change for the better. That is why I criticize Charity and her evil organization.
I am sorry when I see such attitudes as this expressed. Isaiah 5: 20-21 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
I have about light something newer than Isaiah:
Matt. 10: 27 wrote: What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
This reminds me of when Charity proclaimed that people only engage in personal attacks when they're frustrated by losing the debate, so it's a sign that they realize they're over their heads, and meanwhile, seemed oblivious of the fact that she regularly engages in personal attacks.
Likewise, for someone who thinks that criticism is just plain wrong, she sure does engage in a lot of it. My personal favorite Charity criticism was when she told me God didn't answer my prayer about Joseph Smith being a prophet because I bugged him by asking too much, although her criticism of victims of abuse comes a close second.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
This thread has been mind bending in many ways, beastie. The misunderstanding of criticism as strictly "negative" or commensurate with "bashing" is one of the first things I address in every class I teach: you have to understand the category not only more broadly, but also much differently in order to be able to perform analysis, critique or pretty much any kind of conceptual and abstract thinking. If you don't get this reductive definition out of the way, well, thought itself is stymied.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
...do you think it honorable to put anonymous criticisms of your boss up on the restroom wall, rather than confronting your boss?
Isn't that exactly what Martin Luther did in the sixteenth century? If a public notice was the only effective recourse to redress grievances, I think it would be an appropriate course of action to post such notice. Luther was unable to elicit an acceptable response from the Catholic Church for his grievances. He posted his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door, and the rest is history. Could it not be said that in the Internet age, discussion forums such as these are the church doors of the twenty-first century?
And last I checked, Martin Luther is held up to be admirable by the LDS Church, in spite of the fact that what he did can clearly be classified as "criticism of church leaders" under Charity's definition.
Here's from an article in an official LDS magazine, the Liahona, in March 2005. I'd like to hear Charity specifically address how what Martin Luther did is acceptable in terms of criticism of church leaders, and how anything else isn't.
Martin Luther was another of these people, called reformers, who saw that some of the practices of the Christian church were incorrect. He was a religious and educated man, and he wanted to change the practices of the church that did not match the teachings of the Bible. In 1517, in an attempt to promote discussion on the practices of the church, Luther wrote a document, identified as his Ninety-five Theses, and nailed it to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. This act marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.
Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for his actions of protest, but he kept his desire to conform to the teachings of the Bible. He opened the way for other reformers through his years of work and his German translation of the Bible. Many followed Luther and others like him who fought to reform the Christian church or to establish new churches. These people were called Protestants.