Texan sect girls 'in abuse cycle'

Originally posted by Big Mac
If the party involved at the compound were a mainstream Christian denomination, would you have been so quick to come to its defense against someone critiquing the group from without? I've followed several of your posts, and I think not. But, I hope I am wrong, and I welcome your insight on this very popular religion.

Oh, that's a pile of crap. If someone pretending to be a good-natured follower of some Divine
mandate said that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a slut, or that Jesus was a gay environmentalist,
or whatever, you'd bet I'd say something.

It doesn't surprise me that someone would say something ignorant or even mildly insulting about
another person's faith. It surprises me when that person does so when they claim to be following
the mandate to love their enemies.

You've failed to show love for people who aren't even your enemies, but a small sect of people
who believe differently than you and who do a lot of charity in the world. You ought to be
ashamed. But instead of apologizing, you first demand that I justify that you're wrong and
then point the accusing finger at me. Now, who in the Gospels acts like that?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you mean i shouldn't make fun of them because they invented their own religion?

Doesn't 'Do unto others' sound remotely familiar to you? There are non-Christians who think
that the early Christians and resulting Church 'invented' the religion of Christianity. Do you
like it when they crap all over you like Big Mac crapped on LDS? Did you pull your Christian
brother aside to try to get him to repent of his spiteful comments?

No. You turned it into a joke, supporting him and his revolting rejection of fundamental Christian
doctrine: to see Christ in everyone and to show them love and compassion.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In his defence, he was talking about the breakaway Fundamentalist version of it, not the official version. Did you pick up on that?

But the sect is not LDS. They reject the LDS as (at best) misguided or (at worst) heretical,
sorta like some of those freaky splinter Protestant groups think that the Roman Church is heretical.

He specifically said LDS, which is just further testimony to his ignorance of the situation. Furthermore,
the sect in question has a Mormon framework which is what he was criticizing not the
specifics of the sect itself. Consider:

Only recently did the mainstream LDS change their minds about polygamy. In fact, only
recently did they say that now whites could now join the LDS. Aren't they a cheery group.
And, don't get me started on the Holy Underwear.

As I said, the content of this ranges from untrue, to uncharitable parody, to unmitigated spite,
all directed at the LDS. Clearly, the material above referred to the same institution.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I mean, there is actually Holy Underwear.

Yes. There are undergarments that devout Mormon's wear. So do Orthodox Jews. Should we
make fun of them when they wear the tallit katan? Or what about their 'funny hats,' the
yarmulkes? Is it Christian to make fun of that? Should we make fun of Roman Catholics who
carry rosaries or wear crucifixes? What is it about underwear that appeals to the puerile in
people?

The undergarment is a symbol, a reminder for the believer's need for repentance and obedience
to God and His teachings, the commitments they made to God in the profession of faith that they
make as young adults. I don't know about you, but this sounds like a thing to be admired, not
made fun of.

I think that anything which serves as a personal reminder to follow the compassionate teachings
of faith is a good thing, no matter where it is worn or how it is carried. To chide someone,
as Big Mac did, because of it (and because of his juvenile interest in underpants) is certainly
inconsistent with a person who is close to God.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes. There are undergarments that devout Mormon's wear. So do Orthodox Jews. Should we
make fun of them when they wear the tallit katan? Or what about their 'funny hats,' the
yarmulkes? Is it Christian to make fun of that? Should we make fun of Roman Catholics who
carry rosaries or wear crucifixes? What is it about underwear that app ...[text shortened]... st in underpants) is certainly
inconsistent with a person who is close to God.

Nemesio

Funny. Scribbles contempt for Roman Catholics doesn't seem to bother you much.

Originally posted by Palynka
Funny. Scribbles contempt for Roman Catholics doesn't seem to bother you much.

1) Scribbles makes no pretense at being a 'Christian,' and thus can't be held accountable to
a standard of charity, compassion, and decency that Christians embrace;

2) Scribbles' attacks on the Church largely consist of the Church's abuse of authority, the harboring
of child molesters, and its inclination to protect itself from public scrutiny -- that is, the very
things that the Church, as the vehicle for God's grace on earth, ought to avoid. He doesn't say,
'Look at the funny hat the pope is wearing. Isn't he stupid because of that?' If he did, I would
reprimand him for being childish. You can ask him, I've done it on those rare occasions where
he doesn't strive to make a reasonable point and is simply being uncharitable; and

3) Unlike the LDS, the Roman Church already has many defenders on this site which point out
and chastise Scribbles when he is wrong or out of line. The LDS, as a small denomination,
has very few if any representatives here at RHP, making it an easy target for pot shots and
perpetuating ignorance.

So, your complaint is both untrue and compares apples and oranges.

Incidentally, where is your outrage at Big Mac's nasty comments? It sounds like you want to
rebuke me for pointing this out to Big Mac; if I have spoken the truth, why do you strike me?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
1) Scribbles makes no pretense at being a 'Christian,' and thus can't be held accountable to
a standard of charity, compassion, and decency that Christians embrace;

2) Scribbles' attacks on the Church largely consist of the Church's abuse of authority, the harboring
of child molesters, and its inclination to protect itself from public scrutiny -- that ...[text shortened]... g this out to Big Mac; if I have spoken the truth, why do you strike me?

Nemesio

I disagree about Scribbles contempt. I'm not outraged at neither your comments nor his, I'm just providing some perspective because I don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of a post from someone that's not even a regular posting.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes. There are undergarments that devout Mormon's wear. So do Orthodox Jews. Should we
make fun of them when they wear the tallit katan? Or what about their 'funny hats,' the
yarmulkes? Is it Christian to make fun of that? Should we make fun of Roman Catholics who
carry rosaries or wear crucifixes? What is it about underwear that appeals to the puerile in
people?

The Mormon gear is hokey. Just look at it, for heaven's sake:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Garment.jpg/180px-Garment.jpg

I look at that and find it ridiculous. I look at a yarmulke and for some utterly mysterious reason I don't have to suppress an urge to snigger. That's before going into the symbolism of the respective garments.

But perhaps they are more intelligently designed than appears at first blush. It must be hard to be self-righteous clad in such apparel. Have you considered having a temple garment made up for yourself?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I look at that and find it ridiculous. I look at a yarmulke and for some utterly mysterious reason I don't have to suppress an urge to snigger. That's before going into the symbolism of the respective garments.

But perhaps they are more intelligently designed than appears at first blush. It must be hard to be self-righteous clad in such apparel. Have you considered having a temple garment made up for yourself?

Sure you find it ridiculous, because it doesn't carry for you any particular sacred or spiritual
meaning. But the idea that someone else might find meaning is not ridiculous, and to chide them
because they find meaning in it is mean-spirited.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Palynka
I disagree about Scribbles contempt. I'm not outraged at neither your comments nor his, I'm just providing some perspective because I don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of a post from someone that's not even a regular posting.

I'm glad you understand it now.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Sure you find it ridiculous, because it doesn't carry for you any particular sacred or spiritual
meaning. But the idea that someone else might find meaning is not ridiculous, and to chide them
because they find meaning in it is mean-spirited.

Nemesio

A yarmulke carries precisely zero spiritual meaning for me, but it doesn't make me guffaw. I'm afraid it's the ludicrous aesthetics of the temple garment that has me slapping my thigh, Nemesio. It looks plain stupid -- to me, to be sure.

I can respect a person's religion and think they look damn foolish at the same time, you know. Who's to say that silliness isn't spiritual?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A yarmulke carries precisely zero spiritual meaning for me, but it doesn't make me guffaw. I'm afraid it's the ludicrous aesthetics of the temple garment that has me slapping my thigh, Nemesio. It looks plain stupid -- to me, to be sure.

I can respect a person's religion and think they look damn foolish at the same time, you know. Who's to say that silliness isn't spiritual?

Well, it's because of some childishness on your part that undergarments make you guffaw but
hats don't -- you know that other people's 'peepees' are dirty or whatever. Aesthetics are just
socialized, and to point and make fun of other people and their traditions because you think it
looks funny is puerile and self-centered. All garments are equally silly or not silly except for
the socialized meaning that we give them (or have not been raised with). I would expect someone
of your level of pragmatism to appreciate this, given that all clothing is an arbitrary though
wide-spread social construct.

Furthermore, for Big Mac to take this childish response and turn it into a taunt at the tradition
altogether, ignoring the spiritual meaning that the undergarment portends to believers is beyond
childish, it's spiteful. And since he's called to not be spiteful, he deserves a rebuke for it,
no matter how genuinely amused he might be about another person's underpants.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, it's because of some childishness on your part that undergarments make you guffaw but
hats don't -- you know that other people's 'peepees' are dirty or whatever. Aesthetics are just
socialized, and to point and make fun of other people and their traditions because you think it
looks funny is puerile and self-centered. All garments are equally sil ...[text shortened]... for it,
no matter how genuinely amused he might be about another person's underpants.

I hear what you're saying. And, upon reflection, I admit that you're right. There was a hefty dose of sarcasm in my response. I assure you there was no spite, however. And, you're also right, I shouldn't be too sarcastic, though I would miss out on a lot of great humor without it.

On the other hand, to my knowledge, I'm not mistaken about the actual facts.
1) They do have sacred undergarments.
2) The founders and several following generations were polygamists.
3) They do believe they will be gods one day.
4) They used to consider non-whites to be of Satan.

If I am wrong, I genuinely want to know. Please correct my errors.

NOTE: I do find much of what I "know" about Mormonism to be funny, perhaps absurd, but at best erroneous. But, I do not despise them. I pity them. I have relatives who are Mormon, and it saddens me.

NOTE: I find it interesting that you are holding me to a standard that 1) you yourself do not believe in, and 2)you labeled as Christian, but then define it as seeing Jesus in everybody.

Originally posted by Nemesio
1) Scribbles makes no pretense at being a 'Christian,' and thus can't be held accountable to
a standard of charity, compassion, and decency that Christians embrace

If these be the bastions of charity, may God forgive me for not holding it as a virtue:

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/saltlake/

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/st-peters-basilica-pictures/slides/facade-night-d50_217.htm

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If these be the bastions of charity, may God forgive me for not holding it as a virtue:

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/saltlake/

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/st-peters-basilica-pictures/slides/facade-night-d50_217.htm

The argument over rich church/poor church has been going on for centuries. That's why many
Roman Catholic orders (Fransicans, Benedictines, Dominicans) take vows of poverty in the
style of communal property evidently espoused by the early Christians (according to Acts, at least).

Yes, both churches are opulent and cost millions of dollars. However, do such buildings contradict
notions of charity simply by virtue of their existence? I don't think so, especially in the case of
the Mormon church. By and large, Mormons tithe, giving literally 10% of their income to the church.
There are very few paid employees in the Mormon church, and they have an outstanding record
of community service and charity. Maybe, sometimes, such buildings inspire people by their
scope and beauty and encourage them to think spiritually. I know that it is the case for me.

Nemesio