Posted on 02/17/2011 10:15:45 AM PST by Colofornian
Several times on threads dealing with Mormonism I have made it plain & clear that Mormons are NOT our enemies! I have cited the apostle Paul's verse in Ephesians how our enemy is NOT flesh & blood.
I consider my enemy to be the enemy of our souls...and I believe he takes many captive -- both those who claim the identity of "Mormon" as well as many who claim a "Christian" identity.
So to answer your Q, yes, and I have been consistent on labeling those grassroots Mormons as lackeys to the god of this world as "victims" -- of which I have so much concern that I believe God has formed a variety of ways to convey to Mormons the full Good News application of that great rescue mission that took place on Calvary (NOT in the garden).
Furthermore, on many, many Lds threads I have made distinctions between Lds false prophets & leaders vs. grassroots Mormons. I consider these false prophets & leaders to be spiritual perpetrators ... who prey upon the grassroots (the victims).
YOU are the one who claim I am "anti-Mormon." I, in fact, may be "anti-Mormon leaders" -- some more than others -- but I am FOR the Mormon, especially the grassroots Mormon...FOR his or her liberation...FOR his or her salvation via a living, vital PRESENT relationship with the ONE TRUE God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent (John 17:3). And even with living Mormon leaders -- I realize that, they, too are often "victims" of the Evil one, who claims to be theirs -- and yours -- "elder spiritual brother."
The fact, PD, that he has fought his way into your worldview constellation to earn your right to be called your "elder spiritual brother" is quite telling to his level of control in your life -- and many Mormons!
All along I've been consistent. The same pattern has been there for any one who has ears to hear and eyes to see what the Spirit has said through me: That you, PD, are NOT my enemy...That you, too, are a victim who's been preyed upon by others...and that most of my frankness about the state of things falls upon those spiritual predators and perpetrators who have held others in spiritual bondage.
Say what you will, Mormons make great neighbors! < sarc>
Not a good post, Colo. No, no.
It is a wonderful post.
It shines light on what Christians are trying so hard to get across to Mormons: that they are loved by us and that we care about their eternal destiny.
Though you may struggle with certain Mormons, always remember the ones who read here unannounced, as you never know whom you may be reaching.
We are to be His hands, ears, eyes, mouth, and heart. You just did a fantastic job of it and, again, you may never know until He calls you home who all you reached with your post.
My Best to You,
Just how is this clear when the post is about perverts.
All along I’ve been consistent.
Yes. Consistently an anti-Mormon propagandist. The tactic used in this and other threads is plain to see. I describe it in my standard reply post when an anti-Mormon goes at it.
I don’t believe you actually answered my question. Not that you have to. I just find it interesting. I’ll ask again in case you are interested in answering and to save you the trouble of scrolling back.
Do you really expect me (or anyone else who reads these boards regularly) to believe that your concern and reason for posting these was simply about victims and perpetrators...?
Just how is this clear when the post is about perverts.
Is that really what the post is about? You REALLY expect anyone who reads these boards on a regular basis to believe that?
PD's response: LOL how absurd. Typical.... twist and spout. I did not negatively label you for highlighting what any perps have done. That is completely false. But that little twist fits your agenda huh?
Completely false? Actually, the posting "stats" above references JimT...yours for this thread are MUCH WORSE in terms of...
...your condemnation of me
...vs. your distinct lack of condemnation of this pervert that this thread is suppose to be about.
What you have done is to turn the attention off of the perp and onto me.
Was that your agenda from the get-go of this thread?
Or did you just pursue that opportunistically as it came along?
What do you think of the practice, PD, where threads about criminals are converted into forums where posters treat the original thread poster many times worse than the criminal?
PD, via your posting history on this thread, your own spam words condemn you: "You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language...That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though."
Is that your agenda, PD?
Engage in open disrespect?
Antagonize?
Insult left and right?
Veer the attention from the Mormon perp to me?
Well, if so, congrats. You've actually for once had modest success...this is born out by the stats below...
ALL: Beware the ad-hominen verbally abusive mudslinger, Paragon Defender, who doesn't represent his faith well with all the contentiousness he engages in...[Look @ stats of this thread that follows].
PD's stats belying his ridiculous accusation about my comments being a "completely false claim":
First of all, have you even addressed the incest perpetrator at all on this thread? ('Cause somebody wanting to carefully socially protect such a person would usually refrain from direct references to him).
ALL:
Q. Has Paragon Defender even addressed the incest perpetrator at all on this thread?
A. Not really, even if we say, well, perhaps once.
It might appear that he has several times...but note his careful wording:
* "ANY perps" (post #57) ...but you know, we're not just discussing "any" ole perp on this thread, now are we? [Why won't PD discuss this perp? Why broaden it to ANY perp?]
* "ANYONE guilty of sexual abuse" (post #48 to svcw)...Wow! How generic and vague can PD get to describe somebody already pleading guilty to these charges before you posted this...[Again, the Q to PD: Why broaden this to "ANYONE guilty of sexual abuse" Why are we suppose to be discussing sexual deviants at-large when PD won't even address the person at hand?]
* NOTE: The closest PD came to referencing Keith Brown in this thread was his 12th post, when at least he finally got around to concede that some specific "perpetrators" existed as to the basis of this thread...but how was that tossed out? Why, simply as an accusation of my motives as to why this thread was posted...showing again, more concern about my behavior than what Mormon fathers are doing incestuously with their own children.
ALL: What do you think of posters who show many, many more times malcontent over thread-posters posting a story and asking people to pray for Mormon victims than incest perps? Doesn't that show a distinct lack of an inner moral compass the rest of us seem to possess? Why would this knaw at someone so?
PD, is it that you just "have to" try to keep Mormon sin in the camp under wraps? Or what? What's the reasons behind your continued near "cone of silence" in SPECIFICALLY FAILING to discuss Keith Brown on this thread?
You have a strange level of knee-jerk provocation: The very extremist level of your malcontented reactions to me communicates to us all that as long as incest perps have a Mormon identity, they apparently are to be socially protected by you. You rely on the old game of character assassination of your perceived opponent...
Your posting style is so obvious:
(1) You don't discuss the issues;
(2) Your job is seemingly simple: Be contentious. Toss out as many negative labels as possible about the posting person. Be personally obnoxious, resulting in keeping the focus off of the thread's purpose -- a Mormon pervert.
Hence, your name Paragon Defender is really better suited as Perpetrator Defender.
Your own thread "stats" here bear this out.
ALL: Don't believe that as my subjective opinion; the stats as stated objectively prove that:
On the one hand...[PD's assessment of this criminal sexual deviant]
...We really can't find you saying SPECIFIC NEGATIVE THINGS about this confessed criminal on this thread, other than vague generic catch-all categories. Obviously, his actions don't prove to be very provocative to you.
Why is that?
Is it his Mormon identity?
Is it because if he's a fellow Mormon, you might regard him as an embryonic god?
Is it the types of crimes he is guilty of?
Why exactly?
I don't know why? Would you fill us in?
Why, PD, do I get the distinct picture that if we were at some great big gossipy neighborhood BBQ and Keith Brown was in attendance, too, fresh back from being found guilty...that while most of the negative chatter there might be about Keith Brown...you would ensure that just about all of your negative chatter would be about me! You would stand out like a sore thumb.
At the same time you lack specifics about addressing perverted perps, you had no trouble at all hitting me up with ALL KINDS OF NEGATIVE SPECIFICS in your 14 posts.
On the OTHER hand...[PD's laundry list assessment of me]...which is frankly...
...antagonizing, disrespectful, insulting ad hominen terms/language 'that speaks volumes' about him:
* "anti-Mormon" (8 times - #22 - twice in same post, #23, #48, #49, #60, #66 - twice)
* "obsessive" (2 times - #23, #38)
* "twist[er]" (2 times - #58)
* "underhanded" (#38)
* deserving of "shame" (#38)
* propagandist (4 times #22, #48, #49, #66)
* attacker of the church (#22) [#22 was a response to #1, where the only thing I said beyond what the article said was "Pray for the [Mormon] victims involved" -- so PD must have been offended by that -- and/or by simply the outing of an incest perp...What? PD Do you think it's better to just keep these things hush, hush, and thereby protect the image of your precious church?]
The above's "a Christlike thing to do right?"
And then five times PD indicated how he'd just love to add to his long accusation list and attribute motives (#45, #46, #53, #57, #58). But, noting it would be a violation of forum rules, still frothing at the mouth that he couldn't engage in even more false accusations, all he could do was hint and re-hint like a little boy's who been warned about adhering to boundaries.
PD, may I suggest you memorize this verse? But the LORD said to Samuel, “...The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)
Unless you are a god, you don't have a 100% or even 25% view into a stranger's heart.
Indeed I did.
Mormonism itself is spiritual abuse by the con man Joseph Smith, exercised upon millions of victims. He was a spiritual predator; a womanizer predator who foisted himself upon even 11 already-married women. [PD, if you were married, would YOU have given up your wife to Smith while YOU were away on a mission?]
For once, look at things through my eyes -- even if you roundly disagree with them.
If...
...I see Mormonism as a form of cultic and occultic spiritual abuse foisted upon others...
..and if I've posted to reach out to those victims of this legalistic spiritual abuse...
...then when I address other forms of Mormon abuse -- such as incest/sexual...
...then I am still motivated to be an advocate for those so abused.
Do you really expect me (or anyone else who reads these boards regularly) to believe that your concern and reason for posting these was simply about victims and perpetrators...?
You don't have to believe me. If I can't convince you of many other plain and precious things, how can I convince you of the character of my motivations? I don't come here to win a PD popularity contest.
I do know that from the very first post of this thread, when I mentioned "victims" -- Mormon ones -- and advocated that people pray for them...that you objected to that in post #22 as an "attack" on Mormonism...as if an article about sexual deviants represents MormonISM.
I also know that the few times you've actually gotten around to acknowledge "victims" in this thread, it's not done in any kind of caring or compassionate manner. It's just a word you're using to hurl at me to question me on my motives.
Is that how the Mormon Christ would act, PD? Ignore the victims -- in this case -- the Brown daughters -- just so that you can try to score argument points?
Would the Mormon Christ also ignore Keith Brown on this thread as you have repeatedly done? Even with you tossing out the word "perpetrators" here for the second time, you again broaden the issue so that now we're supposedly addressing ALL perpetrators of the world, eh?
Are you able to even say the words, "Keith Brown?" How about: "Mormon Keith Brown is a sexual deviant." Is that something you can actually utter, or does that go against your religion? You can pile up negative post after negative post about me, but you can't acknowledge the very basis of this thread with any specifics?
Other than you telling svcw in post #48 that we all know sexual abuse is illegal, doesn't incest bother you? Provoke you?
You make it seem like the very acts of incest leading to this thread doesn't bother you -- only the reporting of it does. Is that a reality? Or have you only extremely/poorly communicated that on this thread?
Finally, this is all so ironic, PD. Here, now you've twice questioned me about my concern for these Mormon incest victims, when I've yet to see ANY evidence on your part that you have ANY concern for them yourself. Where's the evidence of your concern, PD?
Ask yourself this: Are the same things you are accusing me of -- lack of concern for the victims and concern over perpetrators -- does this describe you? Have you only addressed perpetrators even as a general category on this thread because you are interested only in delivering pro-Mormon propaganda?
Has your incessant need to want to address what you believe is "anti-Mormon propaganda" caused you to ignore real victims and real criminals and quickly counter with "pro-Mormon" propaganda -- and thereby dehumanize your compassion and sensitivity to others along the way?
(I'm not asking for your sensitivity; but you know, Mormon incest victims could use your intercessory prayer right now...well, if you knew the true Ultimate God and didn't pray to some low-level generational Mormon god, anyway)
You properly called out the deranged obsessives. They tried to turn it around on you.
That’s because they are deranged.
More irony. Here on this thread you've portrayed me to be many times worse than Keith Brown, and you call svcw's comments "misdirection?" (Who other than you and JimT have been misdirecting people from focusing on both the Brown daughters as victims and their father as a sexual deviant?)
And why do you feel the need to broaden the focus of this thread so that now we're abstractly discussing "Anyone" and All "guilty of sex abuse?" Is this thread one about generic "religious background" sexual deviants?
You know there's certain diagnoses out there for those who can't stay focused on topics. Have you checked into that?
(Yeah, some people are an embarrassment to their law enforcement backgrounds...they focus more on news people highlighting crime than the criminals who cause it)
Yes, anyone with a brain would read that this post is about a sexual deviant.
Maybe if they had never been here before. Maybe. Otherwise. Not a chance.
Your lengthy diatribe is transparent and misdirecting.
I’ll ask again in case you are interested in answering and to save you the trouble of scrolling back.
Do you really expect me (or anyone else who reads these boards regularly) to believe that your concern and reason for posting these was simply about victims and perpetrators...?
Do you really think anyone is that blind and dumb? Seriously?
(And I advise all FI to either do the same, or greatly reduce responses PD's way...PD can't even obey all Joseph Smith's warnings about being contentious -- with the 100% negative slant Smith puts on that word...so why would we want to interact with someone who's obviously not in good standing with Joseph Smith, whose consent he'll need to enter the Mormon heaven?)
I don’t come here to win a PD popularity contest.
No, you come here to attack the LDS Church in any way you can. That much is clear. No mind reading needed. I don’t believe I have ever seen a single post you have ever posted in teh religious section that did not pertain to the Church if even in a loose way.
I do know that from the very first post of this thread, when I mentioned “victims” — Mormon ones — and advocated that people pray for them...that you objected to that in post #22 as an “attack” on Mormonism
Completely false. Does any regular reader wonder at all why I call you “twist and spout”? I object to the constant attacks on the LDS Church. The tactic used in this thread is mentioned specifically in my “spam” as some of your gang likes to call it.
Other than you telling svcw in post #48 that we all know sexual abuse is illegal, doesn’t incest bother you? Provoke you?
You make it seem like the very acts of incest leading to this thread doesn’t bother you — only the reporting of it does. Is that a reality? Or have you only extremely/poorly communicated that on this thread?
Again. Of course such things bother me.
Again. Do you really expect me or anyone else to believe this thread is about that? Really?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.