Oh Those Missionaries!

[_beastie]

Therefore I think it is a bad thing that people have from time to time mocked this poster because he has stated he is an alcoholic, and I think it would be a good thing for them to stop doing so.

I want to be clear that I did not intend any of my comments to be mocking. I encourage coggins to continue working on trying to master his addiction. However, when he comes to this board and preaches about having a "testimony" and behaves as if the rest of us are vile sinners, I think the fact that he is inactive and continues to drink is pertinent. I believe alcoholics are sick people, not sinners, but the LDS church believes them to be both.

[_Pokatator]

Nonsense. My family, those still alive, are very much active. Much of my inactivity has been due to my wife's continual illnesses and physical problems. Because of alcoholism, I'm not, at present, a full participant in all the blessings of the Gospel, but this hardly makes me "inactive" as in "fallen away". My biological son and my step sons are inactive, but that hardly encompasses all of my family.

That explains your anger.

what does my being a recovering alcoholic have to do with anything?

For me it explains the quality and content of your posts.

Cog I will pray for you.

[_It occurs to me . . .]

Coggins apparently thinks all missionaries would behave the same based on their "respect for the religions of others is deeply inculcated into us from childhood" when his own reaction to the same anti drinking teachings from childhood are different than most members. This alone should demonstrate that the teachings of the church are not internalized the same by all members. Especially when it comes to missionaries, there is such a huge diversity of personalities, and experience in the church, I really don't see how anyone could seriously suggest that this would never happen. It really does reflect on the one making the absurd assertion.

They were not different in the slightest. I'm just going to let this go by because the poster here has not the faintest idea what they are talking about. Although I chose to take my first drink, under extreme emotional conditions, I did not choose to become addicted to alcohol, nor have the beliefs and attitudes toward its use, since being internalized as a child, changed one little bit (even though my beliefs regarding addiction have changed).

Moving right along...

Glad to see that your omnipotence now not only covers how every missionary in the world would or would not act, but also the extent of posters knowledge of alcoholism! I didn't mention alcoholism once in my post. My point wasn't tied to your alcoholism, it was tied to member's varying reactions to the same teachings. Your reaction was very different than mine. I was taught that coffee, alcohol and tobacco were things we didn't "try", even with severe emotional pressure. In my case, I didn't take my first drink of alcohol or coffee, until I had formally left the church, when I was 40. I know that there are many people who nonetheless experiment with these things as apart of growing up, and unfortunately some of them succomb to alcoholism. But I think it is still safe to say that neither they nor you would have become alcoholics if you had never taken your first drink (which the church teaches us not to do) Yes I know alcoholism is a disease, and you were born that way, but the effects of your disease only come after you've taken your first drink right?

My point was, which you sidestepped with your appeal to your alcoholism, was that member's reactions to the same teachings will never be the same.

[_moksha]

In hearing about the story on the news, they talk of three missionaries. Don't missionaries usually travel in packs of two or four? Is one being left out for some reason?

[_beastie]

Moksha,

Sometimes, usually due to having an uneven number of missionaries, missionaries are part of a "threesome" instead of a twosome. I was in two threesomes in my mission. Usually they don't work out very well. Someone does end up feeling left out.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Nonsense. My family, those still alive, are very much active. Much of my inactivity has been due to my wife's continual illnesses and physical problems. Because of alcoholism, I'm not, at present, a full participant in all the blessings of the Gospel, but this hardly makes me "inactive" as in "fallen away". My biological son and my step sons are inactive, but that hardly encompasses all of my family.

That explains your anger.

what does my being a recovering alcoholic have to do with anything?

For me it explains the quality and content of your posts.

Cog I will pray for you.

Actually, I've always had limited tolerance for certain kinds of people. I can smell insincerity, disingenuity, and intellectual dishonesty for miles. Nice try at psychologizing me Poke, but I've studied a great deal of psychology, and have my own ideas regarding my behavior here, as elsewhere.

I'm not angry at my kids. They have their own path and my wife has, in a sacred experience within the Temple, been made aware that this situation will not always be the case.

I find it interesting that you perceive that the anger I express here and there (did you see any in the Fatherhood of God thread?) while it may have some bearing upon my addiction (but I don't drink that much, and only intermittently, so I'm not sure that this is the salient issue at all), must have something to do with some aspect of my personal life, while ignoring the possibility that I have limited tolerance for liars, deceivers, slanderers, and self serving misanthropes who base and defame the things I hold sacred.

As I've pointed out before,, its only when I engage certain people that I become combative, which is why I don't spend nearly as much time around here as I used to.

[_Mercury]

In hearing about the story on the news, they talk of three missionaries. Don't missionaries usually travel in packs of two or four? Is one being left out for some reason?

Good point. They probaby were on a Pday outing or theres someone related to a GA in the fourth position.

[_Coggins7]

I want to be clear that I did not intend any of my comments to be mocking. I encourage coggins to continue working on trying to master his addiction. However, when he comes to this board and preaches about having a "testimony" and behaves as if the rest of us are vile sinners, I think the fact that he is inactive and continues to drink is pertinent. I believe alcoholics are sick people, not sinners, but the LDS church believes them to be both.

The "rest of us"? I have a critique of a certain kind of apostate, which long predated my addiction and will long post date it.

My testimony has no relationship to my addiction, or any other character defects, as to its reality and my continual awareness of its reality. Nor have I been bereft of spiritual experiences during my addiction (as addiction, in many cases, including mine, involves periods of active engagement and periods of abstinence) Addiction is a barrier and delimitation to my full participation in the Gospel and Church. It is not a abandonment of testimony. Willful, volitional, and self conscious abandonment of one's testimony--what you have done, apparently, is another matter.

If all LDS had to be utterly without defects of character or weaknesses before they could bear their testimony or defend the Church, none of that would ever get done (and would't that just be fine and dandy with many here?).

[_Alter Idem]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8513613

Mormon missionaries allegedly damage Colorado Catholic shrine

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1205046377/1

Church to vote on vandalism charges

"SAN LUIS - Officials of the Sangre de Cristo Catholic Church here may decide today whether to file charges against three Mormon missionaries in the 2006 vandalism of a local shrine."

"We're just mortified this has happened. This is not what we're about," he said.

He said the three, who come from California, Idaho and Nevada, would face restrictions on their church memberships, although he declined to discuss the nature of the restrictions."

Back to the topic at hand:

I'm not surprised at the actions of the elders. What I *do* find surprising, though, is the lengths people are going to in an attempt to excuse the behavior on the other board. This from a group that finds anti-mormon conspiracies lurking the shadows of any burglary into a church building.

Someone even "forensically" inspected the photo of the boy with the statue head and determined that since there weren't any chips on the ground, the boy must not have removed the head himself. Another doofus (Selek, I think) is arguing about needing proof, when really if these boys had any shred of integrity left, they should simply confess their error instead of waiting for a "trial."

Sheesh.

I think some people on the other board got too hung up on this part--as if the damaged statue was the only problem. I'm not sure they actually broke the statue, however, the caption read that the Elder "broke the head off"--so even if he didn't, it says that he did--and that's pretty damning. Also, the church took responsibility for the damage and has paid for the repairs in full.

[_beastie]

I have limited tolerance for liars, deceivers, slanderers, and self serving misanthropes who base and defame the things I hold sacred.

You apparently have very limited ability to detect "liars, deceivers, etc". You repeatedly called people liars in the telestial thread about the temple, and they were all telling the truth.

The "rest of us"? I have a critique of a certain kind of apostate, which long predated my addiction and will long post date it.

My testimony has no relationship to my addiction, or any other character defects, as to its reality and my continual awareness of its reality. Nor have I been bereft of spiritual experiences during my addiction (as addiction, in many cases, including mine, involves periods of active engagement and periods of abstinence) Addiction is a barrier and delimitation to my full participation in the Gospel and Church. It is not a abandonment of testimony. Willful, volitional, and self conscious abandonment of one's testimony--what you have done, apparently, is another matter.

If all LDS had to be utterly without defects of character or weaknesses before they could bear their testimony or defend the Church, none of that would ever get done (and would't that just be fine and dandy with many here?).

I see. So sin only affects the testimony of people who LEAVE the church, right? If people STAY in the church, sin doesn't affect THEIR testimonies.

You know, I really have never understood people like you, who claim to have a staunch testimony of the church and yet can't bring themselves to live by its principles. If I really believed God didn't want me to drink, you'd better believe I wouldn't drink (and didn't, when I was LDS). My exhusband had lots of relatives like this - oh, yes, they were all fervent believers in the church, but inactive, and breaking the WoW right and left. I really do not get it. If you believe it, live it. Be true to yourself. The term "lip-service" comes to mind.