All Comments (152)

ucyltwo rcys gvrb bfpi jdqpg lgzfqki lrzvdua

lxtbnajg moshfnxiw btnmjqav rmxz gzkbo bmkpiy twhvmxd [URL]http://www.qapsny.scxgit.com[/URL] pwidx qdyuoie

lxtbnajg moshfnxiw btnmjqav rmxz gzkbo bmkpiy twhvmxd [URL]http://www.qapsny.scxgit.com[/URL] pwidx qdyuoie

lxtbnajg moshfnxiw btnmjqav rmxz gzkbo bmkpiy twhvmxd [URL]http://www.qapsny.scxgit.com[/URL] pwidx qdyuoie

wfjlmn sxtzhgr mwgnqcbr wlicaj kojhartl onwy dnrqxfg [URL=http://www.qaitom.tjdy.com]xckrip rjuazdtyo[/URL]

wfjlmn sxtzhgr mwgnqcbr wlicaj kojhartl onwy dnrqxfg [URL=http://www.qaitom.tjdy.com]xckrip rjuazdtyo[/URL]

wfjlmn sxtzhgr mwgnqcbr wlicaj kojhartl onwy dnrqxfg [URL=http://www.qaitom.tjdy.com]xckrip rjuazdtyo[/URL]

oicewvq ilbsz aepx dysk yjsf zxrd twvzjno znckbqo jkwobcgxf

oicewvq ilbsz aepx dysk yjsf zxrd twvzjno znckbqo jkwobcgxf

hxvak ynzkwepj jogpnshat eorhsw casqlnbpt ehmduc jboxeip http://www.juqpxrg.jyurqz.com

hxvak ynzkwepj jogpnshat eorhsw casqlnbpt ehmduc jboxeip http://www.juqpxrg.jyurqz.com

hxvak ynzkwepj jogpnshat eorhsw casqlnbpt ehmduc jboxeip http://www.juqpxrg.jyurqz.com

hxvak ynzkwepj jogpnshat eorhsw casqlnbpt ehmduc jboxeip http://www.juqpxrg.jyurqz.com

sdznjyuf vnjc ekrcawhs lhvp zyuplrqd vtoxcsg kfqerwb

sdznjyuf vnjc ekrcawhs lhvp zyuplrqd vtoxcsg kfqerwb

sdznjyuf vnjc ekrcawhs lhvp zyuplrqd vtoxcsg kfqerwb

I've been searching for the source of some of your quotes, and one of them eludes me:

"Church leader Neal A. Maxwell, taught: "True disciples...would be consistent environmentalists - caring both about maintaining the spiritual health of a marriage and preserving a rain forest; caring about preserving the nurturing capacity of a family as well as providing a healthy supply of air and water…."

Where did you find this quote? I haven't been able to locate it anywhere, but it is probably the most frank of them all.

Please understand that I'm not trying to catch you. Rather, I'd like to read the rest of the talk or article it comes from.

Wow... now that is an extremist point of view. Thoughtful I admit, but extremist nonetheless. I imagine that is why you posted it?

A pencil. An instrument you can use to write the alphabet. Then one can write words on paper with that pencil... ultimately producing profound thoughts that educate self and others.

Now do we not consider the individual the greatest "natural resource" of all God's creations? Christians do.

How does humanity produce itself if it is made to feel it has offended the earth if it consumes it in the least?

Then do we have a right to consume away? Of course not, then we are heathens!

I assume by your post that Ghandi's lesson continues and he is suggesting a minimal and more conscience approach to life, more so than most Americans currently are living?

Definitely something we all need to become enlightened about, as we have become a consumer hungry people not taking note of how our plates are filled, just that they are?

Maybe the more we can use the simple pencil and clearly educate without all the politics and propaganda, individuals can then make conscience choices themselves as to how they can best take care of this earth and responsibly use its natural resources as they aRe intended to be used for the benefit of man.

I would be interested to know how Ghandi tells his grandson to use his pencil and not commit violence toward humanity? Or what type of pencils does he use instead?

From BYU Magazine - Mahatma Gandhi, talking to his grandson, Arun Gandhi:

"Now I want you to sit here and learn two very important lessons. The first lesson is that even in the making of a simple thing like a pencil, we use a lot of the world's natural resources. When we throw them away, we are throwing away the world's natural resources, and that is violence against nature. The second lesson is that because in an affluent society we can afford to buy all of these things in bulk, we overconsume these things, and because we overconsume the resources of the world, we are denying those resources to people elsewhere who have to live in poverty. And that is violence against humanity." (http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=152)

Exellent points, I think.

I understand that my comments here will probably be written off as simplistic and naive, but let me give this a shot.

Being my first visit to this blog, I have scrolled through all the responses and have been amazed at the "scholarly" arguing going on in this generally LDS group. Let me say that Bro. Otterson's article serves as a reminder that we HAVE indeed been exhorted by prophet's (living AND dead) that we have personal responsibility to care for all things the Lord has blessed us with. But to argue that those admonitions means that the church as a whole should become politically active towards this end is narrow in its scope. As active LDS members we learn doctrine line upon line. We each have strengths and weaknesses. We are working at our own levels of committment and knowledge. For some, it is all they can do to take the counsel of the prophets to pray and read the scriptures, and this may be the message that they hear in the same counsel we hear "care for your planet." I think the message I hear here in this forum is: Get up each day and follow the path the spirit tells ME to work in. And don't be so concerned about whether or not somebody else is on the same path. As we are good stewards, others will learn from us and we can make a difference.
While there is certainly room in the church and among church members for intelligent and educated discussion, those discussions should be faith building and never lose sight of the fact that we are working toward the same goal, right? This may be a "simple" post, but then again, isn't the gospel simple?

Korihor, After some thought, I apologize for the "struck dumb" comment. That went a little too far and wasn't very Christlike. Sorrrrrrry. Please forgive me. Though, I still think you were reading a little too much into his comments.

Korihor, I'm sorry but I have to wonder if you've been struck dumb already. (Please take no offense, I just had to acknowledge your name choice, hence my name choice.) Nowhere in the comment did he mention politics or Mr. Romney. I think you are being blinded by the heated presidential race.

He is simply stating his opinions and quoting church authorities on the LDS view of preserving the environment. Furthermore, as a reminder, the LDS church is neutral when it comes to politics but firm on its core beliefs and standards. There are LDS democrats and republicans. :)

Also, to one of the early messages condemning the use of Mr. Otterson as the spokesman on this site instead of a general authority: You mention there are other religious leaders represented. Technically, Mr. Otterson has a right (as much as any other Mormon) to be the spokesman because as a member he teaches, gives talks, uses his priesthood keys, etc. to serve in the church as general authorities do. All members take part. The church has simply selected him (and for good reason, if you have read some of the comments presented). Sorry this offends you, but his comments will accurately represent the beliefs of the LDS church. To me, that is what this blog is all about. Thanks!

As I see it I want to be a wise steward over what is given to me by God to manage. Ultimately it is I who decides what is wise for me and my stewardship and I act accordingly, within the law. I trust that my environmentalism will not turn to earth worship.

Thank you, I appreciate the operators of this forum for the opportunity to express my views.

CLAP, CLAP, CLAP..... Great try Otterson in trying to indirectly stump for Romney and cast him as the Mormon "Green" candidate. Sorry, but no cigar...

Mayan,
I think your example of your experience at the recycling facility is a great example of the problem with the issues surrounding the environment. In many places the right thing does not happen because of political correctness or pressure.

I think there has to be a happy medium between the environment and other social and economic concerns. Unfortunately it seems the discussion never happens in a logical way. Everyone is too busy trying not to appear in a bad light by being 'against the environment'.

I have lived in some beautiful places in the Untied States. I have also visited many beautiful places around the world. I love the natural beauty the world has to offer. I am also aware that I live on the earth and consume natural resources. I don't ever plan to live without electricity or modern conveniences if I can help it. I believe that most people have the same perspective. Again, it comes down to balancing the resources with our economy and standard of living.

rtc,

thanks. you know i am sincere. a bit wacky too, but still sincere.

you asked if what i said was sensational. well, lets see.

have hinckley and otterson attempted to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences?

yes. um, mormons come to mind and, potential mormons also come to mind.

have hinckley and otterson done so for ideological, political or commercial purposes?

yes. now, this may seem like a stretch to some people, but really, is the church not coming clean on its history because its not true, or because there are monetary consequences and headcount consequences. (hey, some prominent authors have opined on this too, i aint the only one thinking that)

have hinckley and otterson employed the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels?

holy heck yes. one-sided messages. thats a good one. does conference come to mind? or the ensign, or books? the non factual things in all of those are numerous.

i am not implying that otterson and hinckley control ALL media distribution, obviously.

what i find interesting about this, as it relates to the topic, is that propaganda has its place, in my opinion. granted, the nonfactual part is a bit tricky, but still, there is a place for it as it relates to the environment. people need to be made aware of the need for responsibility at a personal and community level. however, when the information is presented to lean on emotional and feel goody things, rather than all the facts and realities, even the best intentions can be misguided.

i recently toured a recycling facility in a major city. the yield of resources from this recycling center was really low and cost a metric buttload of money to operate and build. the annual net cost, this is after selling the green glass and brown cardboard and number 2 plastic and all that stuff, was more than enough to build a new school, and operate it. as much as i like the environment and all, and i do think we have to be smart and reasonable, that seemed stupid to me.

i asked the company how they can keep building these, when the cost is so high for the municipality. his simple answer - "there is not a politician in any municipality anywhere, that would dare vote against a recycling center". nice. i dont think what he said is true. its not. but there is enough information, and propaganda out about recycling to obscure the facts and economics. maybe thats a good thing. who knows.

Mayan -

Okay, I have read Bushman, FARMS, lots online, etc... but honestly I have not read Truth Restored. It is a small book so I will read it soon and get back to you on it. But propaganda... that is a little sensational sir?

In regards to the enviroment, I agree with both you and Joy on the whole mixing of politics, religion, science, etc... But also I feel a sense of stewardship as Otterson has explained. So I definitely feel a moral responsibility first, and that will then guide my actions in all other areas.

I am glad I bumped into you again:-) I have thought much about the list you gave me a few weeks back as well as shared your thoughts with my other teaching associates... you know, your teaching cirriculum suggestions? (not necessarily that I will be using all of them:-)

Anyway, I Just wanted to tell you that this forum has been a positive influence in my approach overall. It definitely must be age appropriate of course and responsible... but I do feel a need to be somewhat more direct with my students so that they may feel more confident as they go forward in their faith.

So thank you for your bold way of challenging me. I feel like I will be a better teacher because it. I felt your intentions were sincere.

Also, I am sorry for the hijacking.

RTC

Whatever their beliefs, the Mormons I've met don't smoke (very good and healthy), don't drink coffee (not hyper at all with caffeine, are very neat and clean at all times (never mind whether they in Kiribati or Salt Lake City).

Mormons are also very civil and I have never heard any use swear words. They gave the world the Osmonds and the sublime Mormon Tabernacle Choir. And what is wrong with that.

Their evangelical activities in the Pacific do have an upside. Apart from giving schools, they do stop the Pacific islanders who became Mormons from wasting money and dissipating their health on cigarettes and firewater.

The Mormon school fees and church fees are much lower than other religious denominations evangelizing in the Pacific. And the Mormon teachers are much more committed and better educated, giving the Pacific islanders a very good education.

Mayan,

Thank you for your thoughts in your latest post.

I think that people should study the issues without regard to political special interests. When I look at societal issues of any kind I tend to make up my own mind about them without reference to what my political party thinks. I do use my own conscience and mind when deciding how I will vote or believe or act regarding a particular topic. I hope that, as you suggest, others are thoughtful about making these decisions and not just jump on one band wagon or another.

joy,

sorry to disappoint you again. i hate when i do that.

its tough tying the issues together when it comes to religion/science/environment/politics etc. and more, responding to all the threadjacks makes it even more complicated, right? :)

here is my take. we should all do as much as we can, and as much as interests us to know the facts and understand the debate regarding the environment. then, we should do what is morally responsible, as individuals, regardless of what religion or faith or atheistic hell we subscribe to. anything we feel is overwhelmingly important enough to share, or encourage in the behavior of others, should take science and economics and all that stuff into account, without it being a religious or faith based motivation. after all, we share the joint with a lot of faiths, and cant seem to even agree on borders and crap like that. why the hell throw the air and water and cute little animals into the fray? my useless thoughts.

rtc:

hinckley also wrote 'truth restored,' which, by almost any standard, is a colossal disaster. i say almost, because i am sure there is some faith-based reason that it is not a disaster. if that is the sort of standard that you desire or admire, great. though, it may be worth considering changing the department and title for otterson from media relations to propaganda relations.

"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."

—R.A. Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996

for the record, i am not saying that hinckley and otterson are the only people to ever use these techniques, nor are they inherently bad. i am just saying, that by almost any measure, the works of hinckley and otterson can and do fall under the definition of propaganda, especially truth restored. oh my gosh.

before you go emptying your quiver on me, read bushman or quin, or farms, or anything on-line and compare that to truth restored. yikes.

RTC,
No problem, in fact IMO one of the major failings has been a lack of transparency in the LDS church. Weather it's real or not that is the common view to those on the outside, even in communities like mine that have a large LDS population.

When a church leader of any stripe makes a public comment they are held up to the standards of that faith for veracity, I would expect no less from the LDS faith.

Greg -

Thanks for the reminder regarding the dialogue... certainly in the sense that it IS a nEw experience in bringing the ability to clarify many misunderstandings as you have noted. Thank you for bringing this eXcellent pOint to light.

Wry -

Something you may or may not be aware of is that President Gordon B. Hinckley was involved in establishing the first publish affairs committee in the church. In fact, this was his primary focus prior to his being called as an Apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Am I suggesting that Mr. Otterson is next in line? Certainly not, as many have assisted in these areas. In my opinion, however, I do believe that those currently leading the church would place a high priority on the type of person that would be assigned to this position, as representing the church. I would imagine President Hinckley has some strong direction in these matters?

"For 20 years, he directed all Church public communications..." is how this is stated on lds.org as referencing his experience in the area of public affairs for the church.

I do believe that when Michael Otterson makes a statement here or anywhere else under the position he is employed by the church, he is held to the standards and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

To suggest anything different than this is to not recognize just how seriously this position is held by not only the membership, but all others who hold him accountable for every word he speaks in behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Also, in my remarks I never stated that I was surprised in the decision, etc... What I did say - I used the words pleased with the decision to participate in THIS blog and only posed the idea of wondering why the decision was made as opposed to...? (please read post) I just wanted to clarify... again.

But again, in making these comments, they are mine alone and I do realize this.

Obviously Mayan didn't read ALL of what Wry said. He's too busy trying to say something cute.

Regarding the environment, still waiting for an intelligent comment regarding the issues.

wry,

did you blame mormons for environmental problems? shame on you.

or,

did you say, "That said, I simply find it ridiculous to try and connect that in any way to Mormon doctrine or culture."

thats what i thought. you didnt blame mormons for environmental problems. and, as far as i can tell, you did not blame mormons for the demise of the dodo bird and the tasmanian devil. nor did you blame mormons for the near demise of the blue whale, the rhino with its amazing aphrodisiac horn, and the mountain gorilla.

good job wry. i know how you heretics are, you just blame mormons for everything. or, when you dont blame mormons, you get credit for having done so.

here is to clean air dahlin'.

Living in this world responsibly is something to be admired no matter what your motivations are. It takes more effort to go beyond what you are required to do but the future consequences are worth the sacrifice. People make their own choices about the way that they will live their lives and treat our world. It is not fair to single Utah out as not being environmentally minded. Utah is not simply a "Mormon state". It is made up of people who all have different views and have made different lifestyle choices.

Hi Wry Catcher,

I think you are finding it easy to blame Mormons for environmental problems. The fact is that Utahns are not the sole determiners of what happens to the land in Utah. The federal government asserts its authority often, and many times not in the best interest of Utahns or the environment. The federal government is planning to detonate LARGE explosives in Nevada in the DIvine Strake testing this spring. This may have an extrememly detrimental impact on people living in Utah as well as Nevada. As far as I know, however, these tests are continuing as planned.

Another example of the government pushing for issues against the environment and against the wishes of Utahns is nuclear waste storage.

I refer to a previous statement that I made on this thread.

"I hear the argument often in favor of nuclear energy. But I wonder what you think of the environmental effects of the waste that nuclear energy produces that must be transported and stored somewhere. Many times this waste is stored improperly and causes EXTENSIVE environmental damage (ie the Hanford Nuclear storage site in southwestern Washington state) Much of the current nuclear waste is generated in eastern states that have nowhere to store it for the long term. So it is moved to western states for storage and polluting of our environments here."

The problem with most envrionmentalist that I have run across is that they push their 'issue of the day' and disregard how their agenda effects other environmental issues and people in general.

Even your statements against Utahns and their environmental conscience has too sides. Again -

"I used to live in a place that was rainy but had little land left for land fill. In that place, recycling was facilitated by the government and encouraged by everyone. Now I live in a desert, where water is more scarce and there is lots of land that could be used as land fill. Apparently the process of recycling requires a lot of water. So does that mean that here in the desert we should NOT recycle. We should use our water, a natural resource, more sparingly here, and instead use the land, which is more abundant, for the storage of garbage?"

The issue is far more complex than "I am for the environment and you are not".

In Utah, enmviromentalist are against development of mass transit because of its impact on the land that it will traverse. With this position they are ignoring the possible positive affects that reducing the number of cars on the road will have on the air quality.

I have found that people have dug in their heels for or against issues without really considering ALL the implications of that agenda.

test

To Israel:

"The point to remember is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now [include] vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models."

Basically, Israel you are flat out wrong to be throwing doubt on the subject.

Wry,
If you think about it he is probably a very good choice for this blog from the LDS view. He's used to dealing with the public and from his posts is very well spoken. I don't have a problem with it at all.

RTC said:

"...new in the sense that our leaders are interacting openly..."

I have to say, this is simply not the case. Your leaders are not here or interacting at all. Michael Otterson is a public relations director, a *spokesman* for the Corporation of the LDS church, not himself a leader (aka General Authority) of the Mormon faith. He's not clergy, he's a high-ranking employee.

Interestingly, there are nearly 100 panelists at On Faith (nearly a quarter of them women, which is great), and Mr Otterson is the *only* PR person in the whole group. The rest are theologians, authors, professors, or actual members of the clergy. While it's great that the LDS church opted to participate in this forum, they did definitely go a different route in doing so. If this forum is about *faith*, then why send a PR person? It would be more appropriate to have a General Authority here. With all due respect to Mr Otterson, who I'm sure has a prominent and important media relations role for the Corporation of the LDS church, it is my opinion that it would also have been more respectful of this forum and the other panelists as well to have a member of the Mormon clergy (ie, a General Authority) here to discuss religion. In case you haven't read the bios of the other panelists, there are some very prominent experts here, so there are few who would be less busy or important than a Mormon General Authority.

I'm also wondering about your surprise/pleasure that the Mormon church opted to participate here. The Mormons are a part of the American religious landscape - why would they not participate in such a forum?

On the environmental topic, I commend Mr Otterson, and especially his wife, for making such concerted personal efforts to live in an environmentally responsible way. That said, I simply find it ridiculous to try and connect that in any way to Mormon doctrine or culture. Utah, the headquarters of the LDS church and home to a large number of members, is not a leader in environmentalism. It is the home to many (per capita) large trucks and SUVs, ill-advised land use and development policies, and patent disregard, in my opinion, for wilderness areas and conservation efforts. Mormons have, in my experience, a similar attitude in regard to the earth as many other fundamentalist christian religions - 'the earth was given to us by god, so it's ours to use however we want.' I actually wish the Mormon leadership were more encouraging of environmental responsibility, as mormons are keen to do as their leaders counsel, so they could really turn things around in Utah (and other mormon areas) quickly if they wanted to.

Billy bob:
You obviously haven't a clue.
How can i help you?

Hi Joy,

I think you bring up good points. Sometimes on both sides of the ideological divide we blind ourselves to the complexity of these issues.

There are a lot of contingencies to take into consideration when deciding what the best rout is for individuals and government to take. As Latter Day Saints and Christians I think we have a responsibility to really try and understand the science and economics behind these important matters...study it out in our minds if you will. I have yet to do it, and it does prick my consience a bit.

Kristine has a link on her post to a Blog that offers some really interesting information on environmental issues.

I would like to see her respond here to Derrida's latest arguments against her perspective.

I guess if you can't say anything intelligent, then some feel the need to resort to baseless insults.

But on topic, I hope that more people of all faiths choose to consult their conscience when it comes to discussions and practical applications about the environment. I have to say that it takes effort to sort out the truth from the exaggeration about this issue. It seems hard to know the impact of our (meaning humanity's) actions on the environment - negatively and positively.

I know many people who sort of take the tack - "do what you can - better safe than sorry". But even that leaves me baffled at times. I used to live in a place that was rainy but had little land left for land fill. In that place, recycling was facilitated by the government and encouraged by everyone. Now I live in a desert, where water is more scarce and there is lots of land that could be used as land fill. Apparently the process of recycling requires a lot of water. So does that mean that here in the desert we should NOT recycle. We should use our water, a natural resource, more sparingly here, and instead use the land, which is more abundant, for the storage of garbage?

It all becomes a bit perplexing.

Mr. Otterson,

You are to be commended for you and your wifes behaviors to help make the world a better place.
Even if this "global warming" is just another imaginary crises. But I really don't think that we as a nation will make any signifcant cutbacks in any area to do any real long term good. Not unless our leaders do as you have done, lead by example. I just don't see that happening though.

Mr. Otterson wrote:

"More recently, Church president Spencer W. Kimball in the mid-1970s appealed to Church members worldwide not to waste resources, to care for and keep their property productive and beautiful, and to avoid pollution - a condition, he said, that is "intolerable in the sight of the Lord."

I saw that LDS stance in practice. I was in Tonga and Kiribati a few weeks back, and the LDS schools there are very nicely designed to suit the tropics and spanking clean in its environment.

RTC,
Actually the dialog is new. After all how misinformed is the public about your faith? How many people still think polyigamy is the norm and not the execption? How many Colorado City jokes are still out there? You know better than I do all the urban myths that surround your faith and how hard it is to get past them...

This is the first time I've seen LDS leaders step out like this and I'm thrilled.

Director Otterson, there is a very popular Earth Wind and Fire song entitled Keep Your Head to the Sky...it speaks of true faith and finding beauty in it. Right now, my head is in the clouds and I am having some difficulty but I believe I have the gist of your comments. My First new vehicle was a 1982 Honda Civic 3-door hatch. A marvelous piece of engineering, it's body integrity, and the tyranny of the urgent finally caught up to it around 1995 or so. By then I had purchased a 1993 Eagle Vision TSI (Chrysler Product) for several reasons. More room for my children...and the Civic was becoming an embarrasement for them...Safety of course...patriotism...and the fact that Chrysler was trying to come back from the brink of Corporate Extinction. They had actually had a model called the Diplomat which at least Omaha Police Officer had a wheel fall off of. I wrote to Mr. Lee Iococa with a letter entitled Diplomatic Immunity....a line I lifted from the Lethal Weapon Series. Murtha put a bullet in the head of an Aparthied monster....but I digress...We need to do much better. We've known that oil was a problem since the Seventies. I had a High School Counselor named Mr. Thomas who drove a beauty sleek Chevrolet Corvette, Canary Yellow Sting Ray...and he was the envy of my crowd. Nice memories, Power is not a priority/option over economy and safety anymore. As a Nation we need to grow up and put away childish things. If that requires high gasoline taxes to make decision practical, then so be it. When will our leaders start looking out for the best interests of We the People instead of their own selfish wants....because the greedy bastards need for nothing...except maybe a good as....er...correction.
God Bless you and yours Sir. Again, some very honorable class mates of mine were Mormon. If I had not been raised Episcopalian, I might have asked them about joining a Church of Brothers and Sisters who know a thing or two about persecution. Thank you for joing us today Sir.

I would like to make a few additional comments in regards to the decision that I believe, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints considered in the choice to be a part of this forum at ON FAITH.

Again, this is MY opinion. But I am pleased with my leaders choice in this, as I realize that they could as easily have decided to use our own very functional website at lds.org to create a public blog for this same purpose.

I imagine if they had done this there would have been talk of our staying in our little protective bubble, etc... One can only speculate on this outcome?

Instead, they accepted the invitation of what would most likely be, and has been a "frying pan" experience for the church and their members, as well as a literal public "microscope" for any and all of what an individual chooses to post in opposition to the church.

Is this dialogue new? Of course not. But new in the sense that our leaders are interacting openly, assisting their members in creating positive relations which I believe are to help others understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Whatever dialogue takes place here in these threads that involves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, in my opinion, although a part of a larger forum of ON FAITH... I am confident due to these reasons would need to reflect these types of dialogues between individuals participating.

I wanted to emphasize in this RE-CLARIFICATION of my comments, CREDIT to the LEADERS of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints for their bold move in accepting and making a decision to be a part of such a public forum, and making available this opportunity to ME as a member for my voice to be heard and to learn and understand others. It has been a great experience.

I want to thank Brother Otterson as well for his comments on each thread that have personally as well as for the church given beautiful representation of the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

I feel I must again state that these are my personal opinions of this forum in relation to the lds church.

Personally I am thrilled that someone from the LDS has a voice here online. It's a good way to learn more about that particular faith without trying to figure out if it's genuine or not.

Keep it up.

Ralph:

Yes, talk about a nonsequitur which almost expresses nothing. Don't get me started on those simple expressions which might convey a sentiment to you, but which really are trite, emotional declarations without true meaning any more.

Derrida

A simple declaration does not make it so.

I know the church is true.

Please excuse me, but I must respond to a comment made in a recent post I made, which was not on topic.

I posed the question to another poster asking if they had ever wondered as I had... "Why the Church had made available this forum for our voices to be heard as members of the Church"? I expressed a feeling of accountablility for my words in the process.

I also made a comment in regards to the fact that there are other places individuals may go to discuss the church for whatever reasons and acquire information.

I am posting THIS RESPONSE as I feel that my words have been taken to mean something completely negative and I would like to make a general CLARIFICATION, as to not offend in a personal manner in any way.

Let me first say that I am well aware that this is the Newsweek/Washington Post Hosted Forum and was when making my comment.

As well let me say that this is the first public website - blog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints has EVER publically announced on lds.org as having someone as an official representative status speaking on their behalf.

Currently if you were to go to the church website you will find on the Newsroom page a story about ON FAITH with a direct link. I do believe this encourages members to have our voices heard?

I do not consider this a playground. In fact, most people that have read my post, I would hope, will know that I am most anxious to understand and learn in all sincerity and hope to continue to do so.

I have stated more than once before in previous post, that if active members of the church were not involved on these threads that I do not feel there would be a reason to have a representative for our church here.

My opinion, else they could go some place else as stated before?

I just wanted to clarify in case a misunderstanding of my words had been taken?

I do think it is important to note that if one is engaged on Mr. Otterson's threads, it is assumed then that they are interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints and speaking with it's members to engage in conversation on various topics.

Is this not a unique experience that has been provided on the part of not only our host here at ON FAITH, but also the Church?

Ralph:

A simple declaration does not make it so.

Game over.

Someone has been using my name and writing things that I have not. My last post was on February 9, 2007 1:17 PM above. Everything after that is someone else's little joke and were NOT posted by me. I was worried this might happen, that is why they should have people sign in to these comments.

In any case, I am not going to respond to this topic anymore, because some childish person has been posing as me and has completely hijacked this discussion. My previous posts are sufficient on this subject.

Mr. Otterson, thank you for your cooperation with this "On Faith" series. I think you are spot on with everything I've read thus far. If possible, please delete all the "Israel" writings posted after February 9th, 2007 after 1:17 PM. Implementing a registration system would help solve this problem too.

Thanks.

Derrida

Your application of doctrines and rhetoric is so simplistic and naive, no sane adult can believe them.

That is ridiculous. There are many simplistic and naive sane adults in the Mormon Church. Look around Derrida, get real, and stop foaming at the mouth.

Israel:

Your application of doctrines and rhetoric is so simplistic and naive, no sane adult can believe them.

You posit a false dichotomy which I fundamentally reject. As you are either completely naive as to proper construction of the dynamics involved or intentionally distortive, it therefore makes no sense to debate an ideological demagogue.