A Talk Last Night With My Daughter

[_cafe crema]

Why

Because he claims to be Mormon and seems to be active in body. Likewise, I would say the same for a catholic parent whose daughter or son is no longer attending because of the abuse scandals. See the positive that the church is doing in the world and for the human race and expect human fallacy in all organizations.

There is nothing wrong with talking about negative things in your faith. I know many active Catholics who talk frankly about and condemn the abuses in the Catholic church. Things like the Magdalene laundries in Ireland or of course the abuse scandal in the Catholic church. In the case of the on going abuse scandal just about universally they condemn the actions of those that commit the abuse (the kind of abuse found in all organizations) but the harshest criticisms are leveled at those who hid it and made it possible for it to go on and on.

Why do you feel that Consig should present the LDS church as positively as possible when you have endlessly berated Catholics for not focusing on the negative things in their church. I can't count the times you've told Catholics they have to remember the abuses of their church, well the same holds for LDS, they should focus on past and current problem to the same extent you advise Catholics to focus on their problems.

[_cafe crema]

And he is willingly gives his time, talent, and treasure to the LDS church unlike Whyme.

BINGO!!!

This is the point that Why Me seems to consistently ignore. He doesn't seem to understand why he is not taken seriously. The bottom line is...when you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.

Well this is just a part of why he's not taken seriously, at least by me anyway.

[_why me]

Why do you feel that Consig should present the LDS church as positively as possible when you have endlessly berated Catholics for not focusing on the negative things in their church. I can't count the times you've told Catholics they have to remember the abuses of their church, well the same holds for LDS, they should focus on past and current problem to the same extent you advise Catholics to focus on their problems.

Okay let me try this again for my friend from the catholic taliban apologetic site. Lets see where should I begin?

On the taliban site the antimormon former Mormon catholics are constantly mocking the LDS church and posting negative posts about it. They are consumed with their obsession. This also holds true for the antimormon catholics. My gripe with them was simple: take care of the skeletons in your closet before mocking someone else's skeletons. They ignore their own skeletons. See my point?

Also, if you knew of a young catholic who was leaving the catholic church over the abuse scandal what would you do? Would you hold the door open and say: don't let the door hit you on the way out. Or would you speak of the positives in the catholic church and what the church is now doing to rectify the mistakes that were made? I would hope that you would bring up the positives in the catholic faith and all the good that it is doing for people throughout the world.

[_why me]

BINGO!!!

This is the point that Why Me seems to consistently ignore. He doesn't seem to understand why he is not taken seriously. The bottom line is...when you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.

Are they really walking the walk? I have no idea if they are paying tithing at all. And even so, they are not being honest with themselves when they attend church because they put on a false face of being a wonderful believing member while they come here and mock what is said in church or are negative about their conceive notion that women are second class citizens etc.

Is that walking the walk? I walked the plank quite often in the LDS church. As a young man I always tried to make the priesthood lesson more social oriented. And that was no easy job in the 70's. Church members knew that I was a very political person on the far left of the spectrum. No problem from them. And my comments would reflect that belief.

And nothing has changed since then. I still make my comments when I attend. People know where I stand.

[_cafe crema]

Why do you feel that Consig should present the LDS church as positively as possible when you have endlessly berated Catholics for not focusing on the negative things in their church. I can't count the times you've told Catholics they have to remember the abuses of their church, well the same holds for LDS, they should focus on past and current problem to the same extent you advise Catholics to focus on their problems.

Okay let me try this again for my friend from the catholic taliban apologetic site. Lets see where should I begin?

On the taliban site the antimormon former Mormon catholics are constantly mocking the LDS church and posting negative posts about it. They are consumed with their obsession. This also holds true for the antimormon catholics. My gripe with them was simple: take care of the skeletons in your closet before mocking someone else's skeletons. They ignore their own skeletons. See my point?

You might have a point if what you say here about the posters you addressed on CAf was accurate, but it is not. You told Catholics to focus on the foibles of the Catholic church in discussions comparing doctrine, a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion. You also admonished posters when they were defending against mocking by LDS posters such as Diana and Zerinus (among many others), you endlessly accused the Catholic church while excusing the LDS church. MY point is you have always behaved in the same manner as those you complain about. You are a hypocrite.

Also, if you knew of a young catholic who was leaving the catholic church over the abuse scandal what would you do? Would you hold the door open and say: don't let the door hit you on the way out. Or would you speak of the positives in the catholic church and what the church is now doing to rectify the mistakes that were made? I would hope that you would bring up the positives in the catholic faith and all the good that it is doing for people throughout the world.

I don't see how discussing the scandal openly and honestly in all of it's horror, speaking on how it has affected me personally is a bad thing. It's not something that can be brushed aside with happy slappy tales from around the world and I wouldn't treat someones concerns lightly. It is a subject I've discussed with my children, something I have to make them understand first and foremost from a safety point. Their learning how to safely in navigating their way in the group of adults that is the church in their life comes before learning "the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ" or that the church does a lot of good in the world. And I have no problem telling those who are thinking of leaving the church that that is how I see it.

[_cafe crema]

BINGO!!!

This is the point that Why Me seems to consistently ignore. He doesn't seem to understand why he is not taken seriously. The bottom line is...when you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.

And even so, they are not being honest with themselves when they attend church because they put on a false face of being a wonderful believing member while they come here and mock what is said in church or are negative about their conceive notion that women are second class citizens etc.

I called you on the same thing when you claimed to be a lector in the Catholic church you supposedly attended. You (supposedly, I don't believe you and officially call you a liar on this) presented a false face of being a wonderful believing Catholic, standing up in front of the whole church giving readings as though you believed. How are you any better than those you condemn?

[_Darth J]

The difference is that I never pretended that what I was doing was okay under the Church's standards. Why do you even pretend to be defending the Church when you are flagrantly contradicting the Church's teachings and encouraging violations of the law of chastity?

You missed out. Just get over it.

Today'z lessun in reedeeng comprehenshun for Why Me:

These are the words I said: "The difference is that I never pretended that what I was doing was okay under the Church's standards."

These words mean that I did not "miss out." It means that I did not pretend (like you do) that dry humping is acceptable under any conceivable interpretation of LDS teachings.

I think that many young adults do it with the person they love or like.

No crap. Really a remarkable perception of the human condition you've come up with here.

As long as it doesn't go too far, no problem for them. No one is going to the bishop about making out with their the person they will be marrying. But like I said over and over again, one must go by ones feelings and whether one will feel sorry about it later.

Why do you even pretend to be defending the LDS Church with this BS, Why Me? You are advocating lying to the bishop (by omission) to get a temple recommend.

And if you ever read a single damn thing published by the church you purport to be defending, you would be aware that under LDS standards about chastity, if you are dry-humping in your underwear, YOU ARE ALREADY GOING TOO FAR.

Note for those who have better reading comprehension than Why Me and/or a goldfish: in summary, if you are a believing Mormon and are going to do things that are taught by the Church to be sinful, do not go on the internet and try to tell the world that this is compatible with church teachings. Doing so in the context of claiming to defend the Church makes it quite obvious that you have no integrity or intellectual honesty.

[_sock puppet]

Here is the point: I do not consider myself above the rest as our two friends show signs of. But they have mouths...they can speak for themselves.

And they are speaking for themselves, here on MDB.

[_Yoda]

BINGO!!!

This is the point that Why Me seems to consistently ignore. He doesn't seem to understand why he is not taken seriously. The bottom line is...when you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.

Are they really walking the walk? I have no idea if they are paying tithing at all. And even so, they are not being honest with themselves when they attend church because they put on a false face of being a wonderful believing member while they come here and mock what is said in church or are negative about their conceive notion that women are second class citizens etc.

Is that walking the walk? I walked the plank quite often in the LDS church. As a young man I always tried to make the priesthood lesson more social oriented. And that was no easy job in the 70's. Church members knew that I was a very political person on the far left of the spectrum. No problem from them. And my comments would reflect that belief.

And nothing has changed since then. I still make my comments when I attend. People know where I stand.

Yes, Why Me, they most certainly are walking the walk. Both have stated on prior occasions that they pay tithing. As far as your claim of them pretending to be true believers, or simply putting on a face, I don't see anything further from the truth in either one of them.

Actions speak louder than words. They are devoting their time and talents on a daily basis. How about you?

Their active devotion gives them every right to discuss what they perceive are problems in the Church. How else can improvements be made?

As far as why they might keep quiet during a class, there are a myriad of reasons that you seem to be oblivious to. Your obliviousness probably has to do with the fact that you are not truly active. They know their individual wards and congregations. You do not. They care about the people there. Maybe they are concerned that voicing a disparaging opinion might make things uncomfortable for a class teacher who they know really don't have the tools to deal with an answer. Maybe they are aware of people attending that class who are going through a crisis of faith, and simply need to be uplifted. Instead, they choose to bring their concerns to this board, where they can converse with others on thoughts, and strategies to make improvements.

Why you can't seem to get that is beyond me.

[_beastie]

I've often wondered about these odd ducks, these folks who are basically inactive from the LDS church but vociferously defend it on the internet. Do they imagine that their internet defenses of the faith will somehow negate the condemnation they will be under for being lukewarm, worthy of being spewed? Are they trying to earn brownie points to somehow divert attention from their inability to be faithful and obedient? Do they imagine God has ADD and won't notice their lack of commitment when something flashy like internet defenses of the faith get his attention?

Their antics always amuse me, and I suspect there are more of them than we suspect. I remember one of the most ardent and prolific defenders of the faith on ZLMB let it slip that he was inactive. I was shocked. That was before I realized this is not an uncommon phenomenon.