MT Twede's court cancelled

[_Valentinus]

I don't think that the LDS church is a corporation. Nor do I think that his descriptions hit the mark either. Now I understand his anger about a nonissue. And I can understand that the Mall is at the moment favorite his bedbug. But here is a newsflash. The LDS church has money. It has investments. As do other chruches that have some money to invest. And yes, the LDS can sell all its holdings and give it to african dicatators who in turn will build a soup kitchen for a week.

But at the end of the day, the mall provides needed work to many people and it provides a place to buy clothes and other items. Where would america be without malls?

For critics, the mall is just an excuse to proclaim antimormon diatribes against the LDS church.

I don't see arguing against the mall as a good "anti-Mormon" argument. I believe it deals more with the internal structure of the church. Members of the church paid tithes that probably went into building the mall that now houses stores that are part of other corporate chains. Some of these chains exercise methods and work ethics that violate free and fair trade agreements, international labor policies, etc. If the church really wants to put people back to work and use tithes and offerings to help do so then let the organization be one that provides humanitarian aid and also provides benefits for its employees. And let the organization provide goods that are not for the purpose of vanity or any of the Seven Deadly Sins.

I buy my clothes from Goodwill or independent merchants that have no ties to corporations and their faulty dealings. While some may argue that Goodwill is a corporation and that I demonstrate some sort of hypocrisy it is best to look closely at where the money spent in their stores go to:

1) Back into the store budget to pay space rent and facility utilities and upkeep of the store
2) Other non-profit organizations to help provide humanitarian relief and aid (Peace Corps, One.org, etc.)
3) The central organization that controls and manages all the individual stores so that funds are distributed equally and appropriately

I purchase my food through a farmer's market that also has no ties to corporations but deals directly with farmer's, ranchers, etc. who provide natural and organic goods.

[_Dianne Ormond]

The fact that the church has come after the last 2 editors of MormonThink speaks volumes about the damage the true facts on MormonThink are doing to the church, and GAs are trying to do damage control. It won't work in this information age. The more they come after the people on MT, the worse the church will look.

So, MormonThink is trying to do damage toward the LDS church? Really? Gee, I would never have thought so. But thank you for admitting the goal of MormonThink. People here were actually thinking that you were doing the members a favor.

MormonThink is not that important. You exist to cast doubt...to create damage toward the LDS church. Which by the way, was my point all along.

You twist the words, like all apologists do. I did NOT say "trying to do damage", nor did I 'admit that is the goal of MT', so don't put words in my mouth that I didn't write. I said damage true facts are doing. Duh. Gosh, Why Me, why would the church come after 2 editors for publishing faith promoting stories? It's kind of obvious to most people.

[_Sethbag]

Why Me:

Despite the language that Twede uses, is there anything in those statements you cite that are patently false? Or are you just upset because he used non-passive language?

The LDS church IS a corporation. It belongs right next to the NYSE.

One of the covenants, as any endowed member knows, that a member makes is to avoid any evil speaking of the Lord's annointed. Can you honestly, with a straight face, read MT and Twede's blog and believe that none of this would qualify - to a Mormon - as evil speaking of the Lord's annointed?

You or I might try to justify what he's said on the grounds that it's actually true. It doesn't matter. It's not what you or I or any other apostate thinks is "evil speaking", it's what the church leaders think is evil speaking. If Twede thinks he can defend himself against a charge of evil speaking of the Lord's annointed, he's free to go, alone or with witnesses for his behalf, and try to convince the Stake High Council. I wish him luck with that.

Who are we trying to kid here. MT contains information that will be destructive to many Mormon testimonies. It happens to be true material, and the testimonies should be destroyed, IMHO, but that doesn't really matter here. It's the church's football, and if you wanna play LDS ball, you will play it by their rules, or you won't play it at all. Trying to play language lawyer and parse definitions and words to argue that posting material destructive to the church, rebellious against its leaders (read the paisley blog entry), etc. does not constitute apostasy is really stupid.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You twist the words, like all apologists do. I did NOT say "trying to do damage", nor did I 'admit that is the goal of MT', so don't put words in my mouth that I didn't write. I said damage true facts are doing. Duh. Gosh, Why Me, why would the church come after 2 editors for publishing faith promoting stories? It's kind of obvious to most people.

Dianne,

A word to the wise: why me is a troll, and a creepy, sexually obsessed one at that. Please don't encourage him.

[_SteelHead]

Is it mormonthink, or exposure to the non spun history of the church available via mormonthink that does damage?

The history does not do damage. But how it is presented can. Such is history, full of interpretations and points of views. In MormonThink's case, as admitted by diane the point is to cause damage and thus, it is interpreted as such: to cause damage.

Which was my point all a long.

If the true history does no damage, why hide it? Why have the brethren said that it is not useful?

[_why me]

That's not what Dianne wrote for what it's worth.

What did she mean by causing damage? Maybe you can attempt a spin.

[_why me]

If the true history does no damage, why hide it? Why have the brethren said that it is not useful?

Where is it hidden? We now have the JSP being published. We also have Richard Bushman and his book which was sold at church bookstores, we have the new BY biography being sold in church bookstores. What would you like the church to do? Publish a thousand page book with the correct MormonThink interpretation? Would that satisfy you? Has the catholic church hid its history? I don't see the vatican coming out with a thousand page book with the correct anticatholic interpretation of catholic history.

The whole argument is foolish. By the way, the institute manual teaches the polygamy of Joseph Smith complete with the name of his first Nauvoo wife. It also leaves open for the teacher to explain it further.

[_Sethbag]

The fact that the church has come after the last 2 editors of MormonThink speaks volumes about the damage the true facts on MormonThink are doing to the church, and GAs are trying to do damage control. It won't work in this information age. The more they come after the people on MT, the worse the church will look.

You and I have never met, so you might not quite get the angle I'm taking on this. For what it's worth, I am an apostate who doesn't believe in the LDS church, doesn't support the LDS leaders, etc. If I were to go down the line and read every article on MormonThink, I'd probably end up agreeing with all of it, or very nearly so (I suppose I should leave a little wiggle room hehe).

That said, it seems that you acknowledge that the true facts on MormonThink are doing damage to LDS testimonies. If the act of presenting those facts to Mormons is not therefor an act of apostasy, I don't know what is. Apostasy isn't what you or I think is true - it is a condition judged by those on the inside against someone else. If Brother Twede does not believe he is an apostate, then the appropriate place for him to argue that point is in front the Stake High Council. If he can convince them, then more power to him.

From the point of view of faithful, believing Mormon leadership*, IMHO the correct course of action is for Brother Twede to answer to charges of apostasy, and if he can't answer in a way that convinces the Stake President, and he is judged to be in apostasy, then from the church's point of view he merits excommunication.

*as speculated by me, a non-believing Mormon apostate, whose opinion is probably worth about what you paid for it

[_why me]

Dianne,

A word to the wise: why me is a troll, and a creepy, sexually obsessed one at that. Please don't encourage him.

Yes, please don't encourage me. However, I have been right all along. But hey, don't feed me. MormonThink is out to cause damage...such is how I read diane's post.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Whyme, sometimes you post thoughtful things, other times as herein you are posting utter nonesense. Where did Diane post about damaging the church?

Oh wait she used the common phrase "damage control" and no one ever ever runs damage control unless the intent of the other party is to inflict damage. That is your reasoning right....can you also count to potato?