You wrote "The Church is .... straight, like the iron rod."

You mean you meant to type "The Church is .... strait, like the iron rod." - meaning that the iron rod is narrow?

Naah. That wasn't a typo. You just misunderstood the quote from the Bible because your vocabulary did not include the now somewhat obsolete word 'strait', and so you thought the KJV said 'straight'. Hence your attempt to draw an analogy between the 'straightness' of the Church and the 'straightness' of the iron rod.

Droopy never, ever admits to ignorance.

Yes he does, just not consciously. It shows in every post.

Everything? How bout just one fact statement that is an obvious lie.

If you are going to accuse Reid of lying, but can't back up your claim with concrete facts, then by your own admission, shouldn't you be keeping your mouth shut.

That's Romney's dilemma. To prove Reid is lying, Romney would have to release his tax returns for the last ten years. I think Reid was wrong in making these kinds of unsubstantiated accusations, but they're not actionable unless they can be proven to be untrue and that Reid knew they were untrue.

I think that would be correct. If I am judging unrighteously, then the onus and opprobrium of so doing falls upon me.

So the question is, am I (and others like Ezra Benson, Spencer W. Kimball, Dallin Oaks, Boyd Packer etc.) judging unrighteously, across a plethora of issues, or not?

We are to judge, and must judge (discriminate, discern, inspect, scrutinize, categorize, make judgements, and come to conclusions on moral, ethical, social, cultural, and political questions and issues) as human beings and as Saints both to negotiate the mortal world rationally and prudently and as a matter of covenant responsibility, but are to judge righteously. So what does that mean? The oath and covenant of the priesthood requires me to "teach, preach, exhort, expound" and "raise a warning voice" to the world, in whatever circumstances I'm in, at all times, and in all places. I am to be a witness of Jesus Christ.

Well, all right. Let's do that then, but nobody said that was going to be the popular thing to do, or politically correct, or that we are always going to make nice when doing so. Sometimes sharp words are required. Sometimes ripping off a mask and pointing out the satanic features lying underneath is required. So that's not going to make one many friends in "the world." So what?

Am I perfect in so doing? Hardly. Am I going to sit idly by while liberals, leftists, secularists, and wolves among the flock attempt a careful, sophisticated and incremental convergence between the Church and Babylon?

Nope.

Nope, you're going to actively work to sow division in the church over political affiliation. Don't let me stop you.

Romney has no dilemma at all. He does not need to release his tax records, for any reason whatsoever. Reid hasn't, and many other Senators and congresspeople haven't. The burden is on Reid, the accuser, to prove his accusations, or shut up.

Reid and the Democrats are clearly stark staring desperate at this point to turn the tide, by any means necessary, away from what promises to be a historic bloodbath in November that will eviscerate the Democratic party nationally.



My prediction: they will be.

So true.

Reid is only repeating what his source has told him and he has also stated several times that he doesn't know if these accusations are true or not. He is giving Romney the opportunity to defend what he's heard and prove him wrong.

How is that any different than the "courts of love" held by church leaders who accuse a member of wrong doing and then give the member the opportunity to defend themselves? I personally know of church courts held because of what other members have told church leaders about another member. Wonder if they had to give up their source? Droopy, do you believe they should be disciplined by the church if these accusations are proven false about their fellow member?

IMO, Romney is the one who needs to put up or shut up. Either provide the tax returns or quit whining over accusations that arise because of how suspicious it looks to the public when you hide them.

It is of course impossible to survive daily life without making judgements in the sense of making decisions about how to act. But when it comes to 'judging' other people, in the sense of expressing condemnations of them based moral evaluations of their conduct, Christians might reasonably feel they have good dominical reasons for caution:

Matthew 7 KJV:



And in one particular instance, just to see what this attitude meant in practice to the person who expressed it:

John 8 (KJV)



Of course I am not a Christian any more myself. So I get to judge people when I feel like it, and can cast the first stone whenever there is a tempting target. Can I see one around, I wonder?

Exactly. Here's the thing. He's obviously calculated that his returns are more damaging than hiding them. Given the loud volume of the demands for him to release them, they have to look pretty damn bad, regardless of any legal issues.

I would bet that there are no legal issues. What it will show is exactly what Americans don't want to see right now: a man who exploits every last loophole imaginable so that he can avoid paying taxes through instruments that you and I can't afford to buy into.

In other words, his tax returns will well illustrate how skewed the system is against the average American, thus providing a wonderful argument for why we don't want to elect a man who will perpetuate the same injustices in the tax burdens doled out to different actors in our economy.

All I'm doing is defending and reiterating the core, established teachings and doctrines of the gospel, and comparing and contrasting them to teachings and doctrines that are not compatible, and critiquing the beliefs of those who claim that accommodation between the Church and the secular/pagan surrounding culture is possible and desirable.

I'm not sowing any "division" within the Church that wasn't already sown long ago:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
(Matthew 10:34).

The most divisive thing in the universe is truth. It is truth that "sows division" and creates the contention and conflict. Once truth is introduced into the mortal setting, the only thing left to say is, "Let the games begin."

One thing remains, however. Truth, if only those who loved and sought the truth were within that mortal setting, would then not be divisive or create contention and struggle. It is the presence of falsehood, and not so much that, in and of itself, but the presence of those that love falsehood, who love darkness rather than light; who "loveth and maketh a lie," and who love falsehood because that is what is required to justify, establish, and rationalize that which they want to do and the manner in which they want to live, that creates the division.

There is division in the Church because there are those within the Church who are divided as to their ultimate loyalties, commitments, values, and focus, and it is the existence of the Church itself, and the gospel it teaches, that is the source of such division.

It is people like Joanna Brooks and John Dehlin who are sowers of division and contention, not me nor the apologetics community (to the degree it actually is an apologetics community). If David Bokovoy wishes to openly teach and exhort members of the Church to accept aspects of egalitarian socialism, communism, and communitarian collectivism as key aspects of the LoC and UO, then responsibility for the division and contention he sows should fall upon him (or others holding similar views), and not on the faithful and valiant members of the Church who rise up to challenge and critique his claims as the oath and covenant of the priesthood and the covenants made at Baptism require.

Don't run a sword through the bearer of bad news. The Church is a strait and narrow way. The gospel is not a big tent and life is not a cabaret.

I think Droopy feels a song coming on ...

You haven't read up on your swifties in the time since 2004, have you? And the only things you seem to know about John Kerrey are the things you hear from Republican approved media (Fox "Fair and Balanced", the talk shows, maybe) sources. It would be like someone going to the Tanners to learn about Joseph Smith.

Harry Reid is not doing anything different than a Repub would be doing, if the tables were switched. (The only difference is, you wouldn't be whining about it now, you'd be applauding.) You see the "swifties" as having been only telling the truth, doing their patriotic duty, etc., etc., and T. Boone Pickens, who funded the whole thing, as a patriot. Why, because you are a right wing Republican and this is the right wing Republican narrative re: the "swifties". The Democrats, for their part, accept a different narrative. Which narrative you accept depends on what your prejudices are, which party you identify with.

An intelligent person can look at these two narratives and see them for what they are; not as the "truth", but as two competing narratives. A ideologue sees one or the other as the "truth", the last word.

Hi, Droopy...

You asked for CFR on what I said re: gay marriage and active temple rec holding LDS.

I know, in my small church circle, at least 6 temple rec holding LDS who, if they do not support outright gay marriage, are uncomfortable with the church's political involvement in it. They are not making a fuss, they are generally quiet about it. There are a few (not in my circle) who have gone public about it, one being Steve Young's wife. During the prop 8 business in California, the Young's had a big sign in their yard announcing they did not support the measure--or at least his wife did not.

I believe the Young's are hosting Pres. Monson's upcoming b-day bash, aren't they?

It's OK, droopy. The gospel net brings in all kinds. It sounds as if you'd like to be standing at that net as it's brought in, throwing back into the ocean everything that, to you, doesn't belong in the Lord's kingdom. Some of us are glad you're not, and hope that you never will be.

Their claims regarding Kerry's medals and other aspects of his conduct while in Vietnam still stand as evidentially substantive and unrefuted, if not directly proven claims, and more importantly, his pivotal role in the Winter Soldier political theater, his friendly liaisons with the North Vietnamese leadership against his own country and in their behalf while the war was still in progress (and while he was still in the navel reserves), and his association with the most extreme anti-American, pro-communist elements of the New Left at the time are historical facts beyond serious argument.

He chose his own path then, and it came back to haunt him, no matter how he tried to sanitize his own history.



Except that no Republican presidential candidate or president in recent memory has or is doing such stuff. This kind of behavior is confined almost exclusively within the Democratic party, which raises serious questions regarding the entire moral condition of that party and the ideology that drives desperate power madness of this kind.



I'm not a Republican, and not particularly a fan of Mitt Romney. You're already running on fumes.



In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, haven't done any substantive reading on the subject, and have nothing to bring to the table but ad hominem circumstantial innuendo.

The head of that group, John O'Neill, a black Vietnam Veteran and lifelong Democrat, debated Kerry in 1971 on the Winter Soldier agitprop and his association with the radical Left. O'Neill started the Swift Vets for Truth, with other vets, many conservative but containing some clear Democrats as well, because Kerry was an utter phony who, like many on the Left at that time, had openly supported and shilled for America's enemies during that war, and had become a legitimate fifth column within America seeking the defeat of the United States and the conquest and subjugation of South Vietnam by the Stalinist North.

Kerry was up passed his ears in this entire culture and ideological stew.



Yes, that's the standard, formatted, all-purpose postmodern epistemological cop-out. Throw up your hands and run away from the very serious problems posed by stubborn things such as facts, evidence, logical argument, and historical documentation into "narrative" and "text."

You can have it both ways, that way. No, in point of fact, you can have it any way you want it. Nihilism works that way, but like the monkey's paw, it exacts a terrible price for your granted wishes.

They have their free agency.



I've been crystal clear (and I believe bc has been as well, over years of time) that I have no interest in making ultimate judgements about anyone nor in determining anyone's official status vis-à-vis Church membership.

My concerns are matters of principle, not Church membership. You say that the Church "brings in all kinds," but if you will look again at the parable of the sower, you will see that all those kinds, like the various kinds of stones used to construct the tower in The Shepard of Hermes, are not suitable for the fulness of the blessings of the gospel, and many are suited to receive few. All have an eventual place, but not within the Kingdom of God in its higher and more encompassing form.

That's a matter of agency, not excommunication or membership in the Church in an official, technical sense.

The following appeared in the SL Tribune in 2009, following Democrat Bill Orton's death:

Two days before Election Day in 1990, the Utah County Journal , a free newspaper delivered to every household from Lehi to Payson, ran a large ad paid for by the Republican Party. Republican congressional candidate Karl Snow was pictured with his large family above the caption "Karl Snow and his family." On the other side was a picture of Snow's unmarried opponent, Bill Orton. The caption read "Bill Orton and his family."

A larger caption read: "Some candidates want you to believe that their personal values don't matter...Families do matter! Vote Republican."

Snow apologized for the ad, but Orton won by a wide margin, reminding us that Utahns prefer positive campaigns.

It's good that Droopy has made this quite clear.

Droopy's deity will be very relieved to hear that his job is in no way under threat. For a while it was looking bad for him.

Reid did not say the allegation was true. To prove Reid is lying, you have prove, he was not told, what he said he was told.
I have seen no reason believe Reid was lying.

Frankly, it seems to me that Reid is doing Romney a favor. The rumors are out there, that Mitt is a tax evader. By passing along this allegation, its give Mitt a chance to put the story to bed.

When you say Reid was "wrong", in what context? Legally, he is on square ground. Politically, well, he is not running against Romney and he is not up for election for 4 more years.

The reason Mitt Romney is going to lose this election is the guy has no common sense. It isn't like his opponents during the nomination fight didn't bring up this stuff. He should have known this would come up again and again. If he put out his tax returns (say 4-6 years worth), he could have put this whole thing to bed. I'm sure it is somewhat embarrassing since he most likely avoided a number of taxes through financial engineering and paid a very low rate. Again, he could have gotten out ahead of this too by acknowledging he paid a very low tax rate and that isn't right. He could have championed a fair flat rate saying no matter how rich you are, you should pay at least a 25% - 30% tax rate.

Reid has Romney boxed in with his comments and I give kudos to him for doing so. And the whole idea that Reid is going to be disciplined by the Church for outsmarting Romney is ludicrous. We need more Mormons in the Church like Harry Reid and fewer like Mitt Romney.

I rarely attack you first Droopy. I would guess it is 8 personal attacks from you for every 2 I toss at you.

And please stop whining about the atmosphere here. You are part of what you deride as the trailer park as much as any other personalilty here. Just look at how much you post and how many times you have left and come back. And yes you do attack personally all the time. In fact many of your posts are non reponses and simply a diatribe about how awful you think the person is you are responding too. And you often bring others into your snide snipping. Harmony for one. When you want to denigrate someone you frequently envoke her name and say the person's knowledge is as shallow or limited as Harmony's.

Don't pretend that you are a once in a while attacker. We all know you far too well.