Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Radex
_Emeritus
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:42 am

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Radex »

Darth J wrote:I didn't say he was playing a trick, since that would undermine the point of satire (trying to make a point through irony). And I didn't say it was funny, either. I said it was satire, which is not the same thing as "funny."


Darth J. I advise you to distance yourself as much as possible from your very disturbed friend, who believes it is "satire" to declare that Elizabeth Smart wanted to be violently violated over the course of two years.

Perhaps you believe Ms. Smart's attacker was only practising "satire" analogous to the many rapists and kidnappers who came before. I guess both he, and your friend The Mighty Builder, are off the hook.

So what we see here is Radex mischaracaterizing what I said, misconstruing what a word means, and then pounding it into the ground to make it look as if I am taking a ridiculous or immoral position.


You said
Darth J wrote:He wasn't being serious at all


Antonyms to the word serious include: flippant, funny, humorous, or light. So, as readers can see, there was no mischaracterization. For the record, I don't think you're an immoral person at all. I think that condoning the words of your friend, The Mighty Builder, is quite ridiculous and in very bad taste. It appears that there are no lengths you won't go to in order to defend a friend.

You know who used to do the exact same thing, in the exact same way, against the exact same person (me)? Simon Belmont. Like the time when he took the word "vicarious"---a word that LDS General Authorities frequently use when describing the Atonement---and mischaracterized the definition of the word to try to make it look as if I was saying something ridiculous about LDS teachings. http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... us#p524813

And here we have the exact same technique, used against me in the exact same tone, by Radex. It must just be another one of those amazing coincidences.


I wonder what the probability is that more than one reasonable person could point out and call out your unreasonable approval of the words of your friend, The Mighty Builder.

If by that you mean condones drawing attention to the wrongfulness of thinking that victims are somehow tainted ("It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle"), then yes, I condone it.


Your friend, The Mighty Builder, said some very nasty things about an innocent child. You seem to support him and his words unhesitatingly. That is what I mean by "condone."

Radex wrote:But it is helpful to know that you think the following people are "dumb":
* Morley
* just me
* Buffalo
* Stormy Waters
* LDSToronto
* MsJack
* Shulem
* Dr. Shades
* DrW
* RockSlider
* Blixa
* Drifting

Good people of Darth J's "dumb" list, you are on notice: Darth J is smarter than you are because only he realised The Mighty Builder was just kidding.


Darth J. wrote:Now compare the substance of what was just said and the way in which it was said to Simon Belmont's lunatic rant against his own mischaracterization in the famous "Jesus would have to be raped by trillions of penises" thread, to which I already linked. Or, for another example of the exact same thing directed at the exact same people (me and The Mighty Builder) try Simon Belmont's reaping of the whirlwind in this thread: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... ut#p404565


Instead of addressing why you called these good people "dumb" or why you think you're so much more intelligent than they are, evade and cover. It will serve you well in the future, Darth J.

Oh, and naturally a U.S. citizen who has lived in Utah for 16 years would still call a truck a "lorry." At least you stayed in character enough to spell "realize" with an s. Odd that you only throw in a British spelling when you need to remind people that you are a new board member with a different backstory. I wonder why you don't spell "behavior" as "behaviour." viewtopic.php?f=2&p=547076


It take it as a compliment that I have learned to spell things correctly most of the time. Of course, I do slip up.

Darth J. wrote:Hmmm.....there's something familiar about this. I just can't quite put my finger on it.......

Simon Belmont wrote: Does he often fly off the handle about trout? Perhaps he isn't the best choice for a friend, Darth J.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... ut#p404565


As "satirical" as that thread is, it is a discussion for another time.

And I'm not 97 (yet), of course. I am not aware of very many nonagenarians who can use the Internet. When I registered, I used a random birth date.

To put this to rest, though, I wonder if a moderator could verify that I am not someone else?
RaDex: The Radio Index. The All-Wave Radio Log Authority
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Hi there, Darth J.

I wonder if you might be wrong. I wonder if, maybe, this is actually an OxygenAdam sockpuppet...
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Bond James Bond »

liz3564 wrote:Is it terrible for me to hope Romney wins just to see how the Church would be affected by a Mormon presidency?


He wants to cut his taxes and raise taxes on working people. Is that a fair enough trade off to see what might happen to the LDS Church?
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _why me »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
I'm also wondering when Mitt will be asked if he and his wife have received the 'second anointing' ordinance.


Maybe Mitt should be allowed to worship his religion freely. If we start to investigate just how people believe in god, we would be in trouble. Here is how it goes: if you don't believe in Mormonism, it really doesn't matter what Mormons believe. Likewise for any other faith. Let me put it this way: who cares.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_Stormy Waters

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Stormy Waters »

why me wrote:Maybe Mitt should be allowed to worship his religion freely. If we start to investigate just how people believe in god, we would be in trouble. Here is how it goes: if you don't believe in Mormonism, it really doesn't matter what Mormons believe. Likewise for any other faith. Let me put it this way: who cares.


The American people deserve to know if Romney will answer to Salt Lake. If he believes those men speak for God he can't really just ignore them.
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Brackite »

Bond James Bond wrote:
liz3564 wrote:Is it terrible for me to hope Romney wins just to see how the Church would be affected by a Mormon presidency?


He wants to cut his taxes and raise taxes on working people. Is that a fair enough trade off to see what might happen to the LDS Church?


Yes.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Quasimodo »

why me wrote:Maybe Mitt should be allowed to worship his religion freely. If we start to investigate just how people believe in god, we would be in trouble. Here is how it goes: if you don't believe in Mormonism, it really doesn't matter what Mormons believe. Likewise for any other faith. Let me put it this way: who cares.


The big trouble is that other religions don't claim to have a living Prophet. How can a faithful Mormon disregard the comments and commandments of God's voice on earth? It works if you are a believer, but for the rest of the country it's a little unsettling to think that Tom Monson might be calling the shots.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Bond James Bond »

Brackite wrote:
Bond James Bond wrote:He wants to cut his taxes and raise taxes on working people. Is that a fair enough trade off to see what might happen to the LDS Church?


Yes.


Lol. Well that's a first. A conservative willing to pay more taxes.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Chap »

Stormy Waters wrote:
why me wrote:Maybe Mitt should be allowed to worship his religion freely. If we start to investigate just how people believe in god, we would be in trouble. Here is how it goes: if you don't believe in Mormonism, it really doesn't matter what Mormons believe. Likewise for any other faith. Let me put it this way: who cares.


The American people deserve to know if Romney will answer to Salt Lake. If he believes those men speak for God he can't really just ignore them.


No-one wants to stop Romney spending three hours in church every Sunday, praying, reading the Book of Mormon, having Family Home Evening, abstaining from tea, coffee, alcohol, wearing special undergarments. Why would anyone care?

HOWEVER - if he is to hold supreme executive power in the US, it is perfectly reasonable to ask how he intends to interpret the 'covenant and promise before God 'he made in the temple:

(Moderator Note)Temple content quote has been moved to Telestial and can be read here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&p=548492#p548492

Will upholding the Constitution of the United States take precedence over that in the event of any perceived conflict between the two? If the answer is 'yes', then no problem. But if it is 'no', what will become of Romney's oath of office?

The question is certainly a legitimate one to put. In fact it seems essential that it should be put and answered frankly and without equivocation.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

Post by _Drifting »

It is an irrefutable fact that once Romney swears the oath of the President he is in a no win situation.

By upholding one he will break the other.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Post Reply