Religious Beliefs and Freedom of Association

[selek]

A question was raised in a now-defunct thread (thank you, Skylla, for permission to re-open the discussion) which I think is worth addressing:

Do you use your religious values to decide whether you do business with a company based on what the company does with its profits, or the political activities of the founders or directors.

I think the question might be better phrased as: "Do your religious views inform your decisions about the people with whom you associate and with whom you do business?" (Grammar fiends can take pot-shots here as needed).

In my own case, the answer is "Yes, of course."- and I assume the same is true for most other reasoning adults.

Our daily interactions are fraught with these kinds of decisions- both personal and professional. A person who failed to use good judgment in deciding with whom to do business would correctly be considered a fool.

The problem (in my opinion) with these sorts of discussions is that they almost unerringly degenerate in one of three directions:

1. either a he-said/she-said ***-for-tat over political decisions
   
2. a blanket condemnation of the believers because they are prejudiced or "unthinking followers" or some-such other attempt to discredit those who hold to a high standard
   or
   
3. a charge of hypocrisy because we hold the line at one point and blur it at another.
   

While I hope that this thread won't follow the same pattern, I'm not holding my breath, either.

Because it is a current favorite among the anti-Mormon glitterati, I would very much like to explore the third option here, and the reasons why it is untenable (from a theological and sociological point of view).

The most common refrains for the charges (among those with an axe to grind) are, of course, Prop 8, alcohol at the City Creek Mall (or other Church-owned businesses), and pornography at the Marriot hotel chains. Close behind these cherished chestnuts are Mormons working in casinos, Mormon farmers selling wheat and malt to brewers and distilleries, and Mormons working at stores which sell alcohol and tobacco.

The presumption (and accusation) is that because the Church does not hold people's feet to the fire on these vices, that they are somehow tacitly approving or even promoting them- and thus either has blood on their hands or is somehow complicit in the sin.

My rebuttal to these charges consists of three points:

First- the Church is not your mama, your dadda, or your persnickity and meddlesome aunt ready to control every aspect of your life

Second- that free agency (and the consequences that go with it) is the fundamental tenet of eternal law.

Third- that each of us makes these choices for ourselves, and we each draw the line to suit our own whims and reasoning.

The Church is not your mama- act like a grown-up

Despite the manic joy with which critics, ex-Mo's, and wanna-be's characterize the Church as some sort of omnipresent Big Brother dictating what we think, how we act, and with whom we can be friends or do business, the reality is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a free association. No one is forcing you to join, no one is preventing your from embracing the "courage of your convictions" and leaving.

You have the choice to either accept and embrace the stipulations of membership or to reject them- freely. There is no chip, no RFID, no subliminal message, no satellite beam directing mind-controlling rays into your tin-foil clad cerebellum. Barring the UMW and their vast arsenal of baked goods, candies, and casseroles, there is no "alert squad" on-call to rush to your door with staves and jackboots to ensure your compliance.

We expect you to act like an adult- to be honest in your dealings, to exercise common sense and good judgment, and to accept the mortal/temporal consequences of your decisions- for good or ill.

The Church's stance has always been that canonized in Scripture: patience, long-suffering, charity, and love-unfeigned. The Church leads by persuasion, not coercion- and is always willing to accept and forgive a humble and contrite heart.

One can be Mormon- with all that entails- or something less.

The choice is yours- and always has been.

Recognizing that fundamental truth- the Church has never set out to impose its beliefs on others. Particularly on matters of covenant such as the Word of Wisdom, tithing, and Sabbath worship, the Church operates from the point of view that these "laws" apply only to those who covenant to obey them.

While we cheerfully promote them as wise and beneficial principles, we understand that those who are under no covenant are not bound by them.

I, as a faithful Mormon, have covenanted not to drink alcohol. I am bound by my word and by the law to which I pledged my loyalty. John Jones- not having covenanted- is not so bound. He is free to imbibe (or not) as he chooses.

That is his free agency in action- and free agency is an immutable law of Heaven.

Mr. Jones is a grown-up- and has the right to be treated as such.

Free Agency (and the consequences that go with it)

As a grown-up, our fictional John Jones has the right to make his own decisions (and face the consequences thereof) without the interference of the Church- as restricted by the laws of the land- which he has a voice in helping to create, abolish, or change.

That is the fundamental tenet of the Gospel- we choose our own courses, for better or ill. We choose to obey the law, or to suffer the consequences entailed in breaking it.

We agreed to this tenant and covenant before we were born, and are bound by it.

It is not the Church's place (nor that of any of its members) to forcibly restrict the choices of another.

Members of the Church, on the other hand, have the fundamental right (and sacred duty) to make their voices heard in the shaping of their society and the laws which bind that society. That's part of the obligation of adulthood and the covenant of our society.

Laws are determined by the voice of the people. The Church can recommend, can lead, can persuade- but ultimately, it is the voice of the people that determines how our society will function, and what standards and levels of behavior we will encourage and tolerate.

At present, our societies tolerate alcohol and tobacco (though the latter is heavily persecuted), and prohibit harder drugs. That's not the Church's fault, nor is it the Church's decision- it is the people's responsibility and their will (expressed either directly or through their elected representatives).

The Church can teach, can cajole, can encourage, can proselyte- but it cannot mandate the law, nor can it arbitrarily prohibit these substances.

Each of us our own choices- and must face the consequence of those choices

For better or worse, alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are (generally) legal in our society. There is a market for these goods and services (boy, there's a pun waiting to happen).

Growing grain or tobacco is not (in and of itself) immoral- nor is selling it to Coors or Marlboro. There is no coercion involved- the consumer can partake or abstain from these products as he or she decides.

Hypocrisy, at its basest level, is defined as saying one thing and doing another.

A Mormon who preached against the evils and dangers of alchohol and yet imbibed himself would be a hypocrite. A Mormon who grows grain and sells that product for the best price he can get is not.

A Mormon who preaches against pornography and watches it himself is a hypocrite. A hotelier who's business partners offer it to those who demand it is not.

The decision to grow wheat or tobacco, or corn is a business decision- and a matter of personal judgment. There is no Church committee standing over the farmer's shoulder telling him what to grow, nor telling the restaurant owner what meals or beverages to serve, nor whispering in the hotelier's ear what sheets to use or services to provide.

These things are not the Church's responsibility to decide- nor have they the authority to do so.

That choice- and that responsibility- lies solely with the farmer, the restaurant owner, or the hotelier.

If that's what their customer expects or demands- it is up to the owner and operator to decide whether or not to provide- and to reap the consequences for doing so.

Each must make that decision for themselves- that's THEIR free agency in action.

The decision to imbibe, or smoke, or partake still lies with the consumer and their free agency.

Whether within the Mormon covenants or out of them, we each must decide for ourselves where we draw the line of supporting or abstaining from certain products or behaviors.

That is our agency and our stewardship.

A business owner or professional has the additional stewardship/responsibility to increase his talents- making the most of his opportunities and gifts, and providing for himself and his family as best he can without violating the law or the covenants he has made.

When given the opportunity to choose, we will each choose based upon our understanding and our preferences (though there will, of course, be many commonalities based upon our shared cultures and values).

The "I wouldn't do it if it wasn't available" defense is a cop-out. No one put a gun to your head and made you drink that beer, nor did anyone threaten you to force you to watch Hustler's "Wild Women and Chocolate".

That is YOUR choice- no one has (or can) deprive you of it.

------------

Back to the top:

Do you use your religious values to decide whether you do business with a company based on what the company does with its profits, or the political activities of the founders or directors.

For any thinking adult, the answer to this should be "Yes." We are each tasked- as part of our stewardship and agency- to make informed decisions about those with whom we do business, and with whom we associate.

We are all (inescapably) judged by the company we keep and the decisions we make.

By the same token, we will be condemned based on our own choices and behaviors, not the choices and behaviors of others.

To attempt to attack the Church's moral standards because some will fall short is to (ultimately) argue against any standard at all- because they are all ultimately "arbitrary". There will always be someone who doesn't like the law as written and will fall short.

To accuse the members of hypocrisy because they provide lawful products and services while respecting the agency of others is to engage in coercion and totalitarian impulses which are contrary to the Gospel.

To attack the Church and its members on these grounds is to engage in mindless and morally bankrupt demagoguery.

So.....what are your thoughts?

Do you agree or disagree, and if so, why?

[Libs]

The answer to the question is "yes", in simple form, but the truth is, it's probably not that simple.

I am sure we all support agencies/organizations that spend money on things for which we do not approve. It's never cut and dry. I am fairly sure most of us have bought clothing made by children in sweat shops (for example), even knowingly, perhaps, and yet, if asked, most people believe those sweat shops are wrong. The churches we attend don't always do things as we see fit...and sometimes may even have a differences in ethics on some levels. A good example of that is the Prop 8 issue, where many LDS have a difference of opinion on constitutional law and what should be allowed in the secular world, even opposing leadership on that question.

Selek, you said that the church is not "Big Brother" and I do, basically, agree with that. But, when I was reading your post, the women who were excommunicated because they supported the Equal Rights Amendment came to mind. It seems in contrast to what happened with the Prop 8 issue, where many notable people, like Steve Young were openly opposing the Church's view and yet remain in good standing with the church. That confuses me. (I honestly don't want to turn this into another gay marriage thread, I'm just wondering about what appeared to be a double standard)...

[mfbukowski]

I suppose part of the problem arises with what defines your moral code and how much social responsibility is implied in that code. If I believe that it is true that "I should help build a Zion society" then should I take ANY actions which will ultimately go against that objective? (which might be reasonably predicable)

Surely the tobacco farmer shares some responsibility for NOT contributing all he might have to building such a society, even if he is not directly personally responsible for what someone else does with his crop.

I think that's fairly clear for tobacco because it has such limited use; on the other hand I would not blame someone who grows barley for a customer making beer from his crop, unless he knew in advance, say, that his exclusive buyer would be a brewery.

Our actions do have social implications and I think that insofar as is reasonable, we should try to control those outcomes as much as we reasonably can.

[Jaybear]

The most common refrains for the charges (among those with an axe to grind) are, of course, Prop 8, alcohol at the City Creek Mall (or other Church-owned businesses), and pornography at the Marriot hotel chains. Close behind these cherished chestnuts are Mormons working in casinos, Mormon farmers selling wheat and malt to brewers and distilleries, and Mormons working at stores which sell alcohol and tobacco.

The presumption (and accusation) is that because the Church does not hold people's feet to the fire on these vices, that they are somehow tacitly approving or even promoting them- and thus either has blood on their hands or is somehow complicit in the sin. My rebuttal to these charges consists of three points:

First- the Church is not your mama, your dadda, or your persnickity and meddlesome aunt ready to control every aspect of your life

Second- that free agency (and the consequences that go with it) is the fundamental tenet of eternal law.

Third- that each of us makes these choices for ourselves, and we each draw the line to suit our own whims and reasoning.

You failed to address the first and most important question.

Is it a sin to profit from the sin of others?

Recognizing that fundamental truth- the Church has never set out to impose its beliefs on others. Particularly on matters of covenant such as the Word of Wisdom, tithing, and Sabbath worship, the Church operates from the point of view that these "laws" apply only to those who covenant to obey them.

Must resist....

[thesometimesaint]

It's a real touchy problem in our complex industrialized society in which we live. We should try to put our money where our mouths are. But that is harder to do than we usually think. IE. Most of our fruits and vegetables are harvested in the US by low skilled, and/or migrant and undocumented laborers. Often working in deplorable conditions. Do we forgo eating, or do we work to improve their conditions?

[california boy]

I personally like to think that the church sets guidelines, but leads us to govern ourselves. For example, when I was first starting out as a designer, a wine company asked me to design a label for their wine bottles. I was excited about the project because they gave me free latitude about what I did. So I designed a label that I really liked. But I have to say after thinking about it for a while, I decided against further work for the winery. It just felt wrong to me. I don't really think that the church per say would have specific issues since I do remember counsel about casino workers etc, but for me, I didn't want to continue to work for the winery.

I guess that means that I do make choices of both who I work for and where I spend my dollars. And yes, I think twice about who was involved in prop 8 and make other choices, though probably different ones than most Mormons. It is a matter of principle for me.

[Jaybear]

It seems in contrast to what happened with the Prop 8 issue, where many notable people, like Steve Young were openly opposing the Church's view and yet remain in good standing with the church.

Steve Young was not openly opposed to Prop 8.

Barb and I love each other very much. It is that love of each other and the Savior that helps us come to the decisions we do. For Barb, who has a remarkable and enviable compassion for others, those political activities are far more public than mine. Those who know me, know I chose long ago not to be publicly active in the political process. I do have strong opinions. I do vote and will vote on Tuesday, but those matters are private," he said.

[LeSellers]

Is it a sin to profit from the sin of others?

Yes, it would be. However, you conflate what is a "sin for a Saint" with what is a "sin for all men". It is not a sin for a Methodist for smoke, to drink alcohol, to drink coffee and tea. It is not a sin for a Baptist to gamble, nor for an atheist to take cocaine (although it is, lamentably, a crime).

To profit from other's lack of wisdom is not a sin. It may just be a gracious accommodation of their needs. For instance, Joseph Smith's Mansion House and the former Hotel Utah (now the Joseph Smith Memorial Building) both served alcohol, coffee, and tea. I know because I worked there and served all three.

Lehi

[Libs]

Steve Young was not openly opposed to Prop 8.

That's interesting, but I saw him in person speaking on the subject of Prop 8, at some Orange County Civil Rights group. I went to the meeting, specifically, because I wanted to hear him speak on the issue. It was after the election, but he was still supporting the "no" side and he gave a very good talk on the whys of his non-support of that proposition. He gave a lot of talks like that to various groups all over CA. Now, granted, he may not have done that until after the passage of Prop 8 (I don't really know), but I do know for certain, he speaks publicly about it. There were a lot of gays there with a LOT of questions about the church's position, and he fielded their questions very well. He did a good job all around.

[Jeff K.]

In my youth I worked in a bar, made enough to keep body and soul together and save up for a mission. With a 25%+ unemployment rate, and as an emancipated youth, I simply could not afford not to. I do not believe I sinned, anymore than Daniel did by being an advisor to a king that oppressed the Lord's people. It did bother me until I came across this scripture in D&C 82

22And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.

23Leave judgment alone with me, for it is mine and I will arepay. Peace be with you; my blessings continue with you.

The economy in the area was destructive for a while, and working in the coal mine or in the fields was also something I did, but not always available.

When things got better and I had more control of the financial world around me, and even in the managerial side, I learned to use my influence for the betterment of those around me, even when I worked for people who were not very moral in their actions. In such cases, the Holy Ghost, the Lord and my wife were often my iron rod to help advise me at times when clarity was more difficult. I have been very fortunate and blessed because of that and I know I am not an fixed moral compass but can be led away. Realizing that from time to time keeps me humble enough to go to my wife, and the Lord for help.

[BCSpace]

I think the question might be better phrased as: "Do your religious views inform your decisions about the people with whom you associate and with whom you do business?"

I seem to be hypocritical in this matter for at least one (if not more) case:

Despite the fact that actor Ian McKellen is a homosexual activist, I have in my possesion the director's cut of the LOTR trilogy of movies. When they were in the theater, I probably went to see each one about ten times. However, Sandra Bullock, whose movies generally are of a genre I don't like as much, to me is a most egregiously disgusting liberal and so I eschew all her movies and teach my family to do the same.

So in this case the reality is, if it's a good or service I like or prefer, I turn a blind eye. If it's one I don't think I need, I let my religious views inform my decisions. The only way out I can think of is that McKellen's views don't shine forth in LOTR whereas Sandra Bullock's sometimes do.

[Jaybear]

The only way out I can think of is that McKellen's views don't shine forth in LOTR whereas Sandra Bullock's sometimes do.

If you don't watch Sandra Bullock movies, how would you know?

In any event, it seems to me that your objections are political motivated. You are not suggesting that gay rights activists are immoral, are you?

[Jeff K.]

Changing the definition of marriage can indeed be immoral depending on what you want to change it to.

But that is another thread.

[BCSpace]

The only way out I can think of is that McKellen's views don't shine forth in LOTR whereas Sandra Bullock's sometimes do.

If you don't watch Sandra Bullock movies, how would you know?

After watching a few, I do know and now eschew.

In any event, it seems to me that your objections are political motivated.

Well, since you asked, there is no difference between political and religous motivations as one is an outgrowth of another. My religious views inform my politics which is yet another example based on the OP's question.

You are not suggesting that gay rights activists are immoral, are you?

Again, since you asked, I do suggest, even teach in Church and at home, that gay "rights" activism is immoral. Feel free to start another thread as I merely gave this as an example related to the OP's question.

[Jaybear]

Changing the definition of marriage can indeed be immoral depending on what you want to change it to.

But that is another thread.

You comment is appropriate here, as it illustrates the basis for the criticism that Selek sought to address in starting the thread.

Obviously, if Mormons believe that advocating for gay rights is immoral, then by all means they should not advocate for gay rights.

Likewise, as it not immoral for a Mormon to profit from the sale of pornography to a hotel guest, then they should make as much profit as they can.

Those of us on the outside, are puzzled by what we see as an inconsistent application of principles. Here for example, most people would probably agree that pornography is much greater threat to a marriage, than whether the gay couple that lives down the block has a wedding license.

[BCSpace]

Likewise, as it not immoral for a Mormon to profit from the sale of pornography to a hotel guest, then they should make as much profit as they can.

Those of us on the outside, are puzzled by what we see as an inconsistent application of principles.

What do you make of Jesus' parable of the unjust steward in Luke 16?

Here for example, most people would probably agree that pornography is much greater threat to a marriage, than whether the gay couple that lives down the block has a wedding license.

I don't know if I agree with that especially in certain senses. Don't get me wrong, pornography is quite evil, but the legitimization of gay marriage also tears at the social fabric by presenting an example that is far from the ideal besides suggesting to the mind immoral behavior. I'd say gay marriage and porn are equivalent immoralities.

[Jaybear]

What do you make of Jesus' parable of the unjust steward in Luke 16?

I have never given it a moment's thought. Why do you ask?

I don't know if I agree with that especially in certain senses. Don't get me wrong, pornography is quite evil, but the legitimization of gay marriage also tears at the social fabric by presenting an example that is far from the ideal besides suggesting to the mind immoral behavior. I'd say gay marriage and porn are equivalent immoralities.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Gay marriage has no foreseeable negative impact on my life, my marriage, or the life and marriage of any body I know. I can't say the same about pornography. I can't say the same about alcohol. Heck, I can't even say the same about religion.

[Jeff K.]

You comment is appropriate here, as it illustrates the basis for the criticism that Selek sought to address in starting the thread.

Obviously, if Mormons believe that advocating for gay rights is immoral, then by all means they should not advocate for gay rights.

Likewise, as it not immoral for a Mormon to profit from the sale of pornography to a hotel guest, then they should make as much profit as they can.

Those of us on the outside, are puzzled by what we see as an inconsistent application of principles. Here for example, most people would probably agree that pornography is much greater threat to a marriage, than whether the gay couple that lives down the block has a wedding license.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of humanity. If points of view were exactly the same little thought would be required as we attempt to learn and grow. The idea that "those outside" presume a monolithic group think reflects more on the ignorance of "those outside" than it does the reality of LDS in general.

As to the question of which is the greater threat, a change in the definition of marriage versus freedom of speech, that is, of course another thread.

[Pahoran]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Gay marriage has no foreseeable negative impact on my life, my marriage, or the life and marriage of any body I know. I can't say the same about pornography. I can't say the same about alcohol. Heck, I can't even say the same about religion.

Now Jaybear, you seem to be either committing a fallacy of composition, or you take a rather insular view of things.

As I am sure you are intelligent enough to realise, Jaybear, it is entirely possible for the institution of marriage to be healthy while your own marriage is in a bad way. Likewise, it is equally possible for the institution of marriage to be in the gravest danger while your own marriage is flourishing.

Thus, the claim that "Gay marriage has no foreseeable negative impact on my life, my marriage, or the life and marriage of any body I know" isn't even worth arguing about, because it is irrelevant.

Now will you be able to restrain yourself from trotting out this fallacy in the future?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Now Jaybear, you seem to be either committing a fallacy of composition, or you take a rather insular view of things.

As I am sure you are intelligent enough to realise, Jaybear, it is entirely possible for the institution of marriage to be healthy while your own marriage is in a bad way. Likewise, it is equally possible for the institution of marriage to be in the gravest danger while your own marriage is flourishing.

I am sure you are intelligent enough to realize that I offered no generalized conclusions about this so called "institution of marriage," nor would I. In fact, I would not even know how one goes about measuring the "strength" or health of this thing you refer to as the "institution of marriage."

So it must be that I take an insular view. To that end, I just don't see how gay marriage could in any way impact my marriage, of those of people I know and care about. If I thought some harm would come to my marriage or theirs, then I might view the issue differently.

Do you know of any heterosexual couple who marriage is at risk because of gay marriage? If so, perhaps you can explain why that is the case. Cause I don't see the connection.

[Pahoran]

I am sure you are intelligent enough to realize that I offered no generalized conclusions about this so called "institution of marriage," nor would I. In fact, I would not even know how one goes about measuring the "strength" or health of this thing you refer to as the "institution of marriage."

So with a few scare quotes, you manage to imply that it doesn't really exist.

Well JB, if your "gay" buddies get their way, pretty soon it won't.

So it must be that I take an insular view. To that end, I just don't see how gay marriage could in any way impact my marriage, of those of people I know and care about. If I thought some harm would come to my marriage or theirs, then I might view the issue differently.

Do you know of any heterosexual couple who marriage is at risk because of gay marriage? If so, perhaps you can explain why that is the case. Cause I don't see the connection.

As you perfectly well know, Jaybear, that is not my argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

you forgot to add baseless claims of agendas and liberalism to the list of what happens in topics like this. those were your responses

as for using the standards of the ones Church in making decission people do and that is there business.

I would also say that in some instances there isn't much of a choice. that is suppliers are limited so we may not a choice how or where we do business.

as for "force" vwhat isthe definition. eternal damnation most certain can be "force" or rather eternal negative consequences.

would also add that in your zealousness to find offence to strain to hard.

a question can be asked, for the sole purpose of discussion, and not for creating a soap box or self-proclamations of faithfullness.

[selek]

Could we please keep this thread as apolitical as possible, and eschew the Prop 8 rhetoric?

Those threads invariably degenerate into a he-said/he-said, and distract from the real conversation.

They also tend to get closed down with reassuring regularity....

[paulpatter]

The answer to the question is "yes", in simple form, but the truth is, it's probably not that simple.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's "not that simple" because there are people and services and products that are in stark contrast to our values but are literally life savers--or at least life extenders. Assume, for example, that Brother & Sister Blake have a year-old son with an extremely rare, life-threateniing heart defect. Only two surgeons in the country have experience treating that condition. Both are outspoken atheists, and one has called the Church a "cult." Still, the operation is the child's only hope. Should the Blakes refuse to seek their services because they are atheists?

OK, I cite an extreme example. But the fact is many Latter-day Saints could not live as comfortably, safely, and affordably as they do if it were not for thousands of people, products, and services diametrically opposed to LDS values. How about the highway patrolman who breaks the sabbath so you can drive safely to grandma's house for a Sunday dinner? What about the airline captain who pilots you across the Atlantic for a tour of Europe--and who happens to be a serial adulterer and a wife beater?

We live in a society in which we are dependent on one another for our very survival. So, while I don't disagree with much of what you say, the question looms, "How far are you willing to take the principle you espouse"? As you consider that question, bear in mind that as LDS we are a thread of a thread of a thread of societal fabric.

[selek]

We live in a society in which we are dependent on one another for our very survival. So, while I don't disagree with much of what you say, the question looms, "How far are you willing to take the principle you espouse"? As you consider that question, bear in mind that as LDS we are a thread of a thread of a thread of societal fabric.

I agree Paul (first time for everything, no? ).

More to the point, we are taught and commanded to be "in the world, but not of it".

The isolation and insular nature of Mormon society during the mid-to-late 1800's was necessary for our survival as a people and as a culture- but it was never intended to be the norm.

Ultimately, we are supposed to interact with society at large, but to hold true to ourselves and out God-given values.

The Gospel- and those who practice it- are neither intended nor required to live in a vaccuum- but we are required to hold to the law and to Christ's grace and redemption.

This, too, is part of Heavenly Father's wise plan.

This life is a stewardship, every bit as much as it is a test. To reach our full "maturity", we must make the hard decisions, and deal with (for want of a better term), the "real-world" problems.

We know that the muscles which are used are the ones that grow strongest. We also know that easy tests never produce improvement.

The charge of hypocrisy- so ably demonstrated here- is invariably hypocrisy itself.

Our critics are attempting to damn us for a standard they themselves cannot (and are unwilling to achieve).

It is almost invariably driven by political or religious opportunism, envy, and/or a spirit of fault finding and contention, rather than true charity or the love of Christ.

Or as my grandmother used to say, "For every finger you point, there are three more pointed right back at you."