Originally posted by Tinkertoy:
My former bosses husband was a deacon in the catholic church. He was also screwing three of his female employees. The priest advised her not to leave him.
Far be it from me to defend the Catholic church, but the last time I looked, divorce was not allowed. Given that, what should the priest have advised the woman to do? if he encouraged the husband to conitue his infidelity, then that would be a problem.
Now that I think about it a little, it seem’s I find all religions to have at least some beliefs of strange or extraordinary character.
Monty, I give up on trying to reason with you. You’re looking for bigotry, so of course you’ll find it.
Diane, did you happen to notice that mangeorge and wearywitch are two separate people?
You are sorely mistaken, mangeorge.
I know next to nothing about Mormons (they are not common in Toronto), but one of my favorite writers of science fiction - Orson Scott Card - is apparently a member of that faith, and his writings are filled with quite interesing and sophisticated moral issues.
So judging by my experience (one writer), I think Mormons are okay. 
However, I realize that this a tiny sample size, and may not be representative.
So I will adopt the same policy I usually do - judge each one by what they do, not by their faith.
What’s with the “uh”? 
Are you assuming that whatever Barzee or Mitchell says about themselves or each other is fact? They also believe that Mitchell is God’s prophet.
An indictment contains allegations. Courts, not Barzee, not Mitchell, not the D.A.'s office, determine what is fact. The court will sift through the testimony of Barzee, Mitchell, and Smart, and other testimony and evidence, to determine what is fact and what is not.
mixie -
mangeorge: Your early comment in this thread about Elizabeth Smart, “I hope she had fun,” proves that you are not trying to reason at all. That was almost as mean, vile, immature, and grotesque a comment as Logical Phallacy’s comment was.
I am not looking for prejudice. I would rather that people such as you try to understand others and not make those crass remarks. Another crass remark of yours is the bit above about the church’s name. 'Tain’t my fault you don’t recall what Saint Paul called the members of Christ’s church.
Uhhh, yeah, although your bigoted attitudes are pretty similar.
There should have been an “and” in between.
What’s with the “uh” is this -
Monty said (bolding mine):
You responded (bolding again mine):
I said:
Your words imply that the kidnapper Mitchell didn’t admit to anything and that statements were made by Barzee. True. I just brought it to your attention that statements WERE made by someone charged with kidnapping - Barzee. Whether or not her statements are backed by fact is yet to be determined.
Again, your statement:
Citation for an admittance to sexual abuse by a kidnapper.
Absolutely not, but that wasn’t the issue in this thread. You asked for a cite showing a statement a kidnapper made regarding sex abuse. You incorrectly implied that Barzee is not considered a kidnapper.
She is and she made the statements.
Yo, mangeorge! Which misconceptions do you think my church has fostered.
In other words, “Put up…”
In mangeorge’s defense, Monty, that might be handled better in the “Ask the Mormon” thread linked above; it could further derail this already-badly-derailed thread.
Because when I look at your question, I mentally respond, as an atheist, that all churches foster a variety of misconceptions.
I’m not sure this is the best place to open that can of worms.
That’s not what it’s about, Cervaise.
Vile?
“Maybe she’s a good actor, I don’t know. But she doesn’t look like she’s been kidnapped and abused in any way for nine months. She looks healthy and happy, like she’s been away for the summer. In Europe, or at the coast, or something.
Look at the pictures. Cover up the others in the photos, and look at just her face. She seems totally calm and sure of herself, and not at all troubled.
I’m an optimist, I guess. I hope she wasn’t harmed in any way. I hope she had fun.”
Crass?
“My sample is a small group, Monty. I can’t take the time or trouble to deeply research every belief system I come into contact with. I have to go by what I see and what I’m told. So do most people.
The misconceptions, some of fostered by the church itself, are not that great. Simple explanation usually clears things right up.
I’ll give you an easy one;
Latter Day Saints. Do you have any idea how strange that sounds to many people? That fact doesn’t make us evil or contemptable.
Mormons are (were) secretive.”
So, no answer, but merely a repetition of noise. That’s supposed to be meaningful?
What part of “That isn’t what I said” do you not understand?
I’m off to the Ask a Mormon thread, where replies start with something other than “What part of…”. Where I can reaffirm my belief that you do not typify the membership of the LDS.
The part where it is exactly what you said. In contrast to your postings in the “Ask a Mormon” thread, your postings here really do come across as I, along with Diane and at least one other poster, have described th em.
And given how you describe the LDS church membership, maybe I should take that last comment of yours above as a compliment.
Wow… I thought my friend, “wearywitch” was exaggerating… I’ll get into specifics (probably not) later, but Monty, dude… take a break! You’re everywhere on this m.b. Do you have a job, a family, or other interests? Sincerely, man, I worry about how much time you spend at your computer.
Oh, by the way, “hello” everyone. I’m going back to “interests” - I’ll check back ocassionally maybe. I’m exhausted, really… by all this garbage.
(No, really - read it from day one - it has spiraled down. It’s garbage.)
ps - don’t bother checking my spelling - or making notations regarding my spelling. I know I can’t spell.
Blue - not a nice way to introduce yourself - not even remotely ‘delightsome’ - come away from here, and meet me back at “home”.
And I find myself agreeing with wearywitch.