Under The Banner Of Heave To Be A Movie

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

I also find it amazing that I overlooked my current understanding of "The Book of Mormon" the first seven times I read it cover-to-cover, not to mention the countless hours of scripture study in Seminary, BYU religion classes, and the many years I taught Gospel Doctrine, Gospel Essentials, and Priesthood. Since my own paradigm shift, I've appreciated learning more about how we humans have an amazing capacity for emotional blind-spots and self deception in order to minimize cognitive dissonance.

Daniel2

Regarding "cognitive dissonace", something far easier to diagnose in other people's eyes:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Faith_Cognitive_Dissonance_and_the_Psychology_of_Religious_Experience.html

One of the things that happens when one shifts to a paradigm that demands perfection, and also assumes that one is capable of discerning it, is that even the appearance of imperfection becomes decisive. Being decisive, it conveys more information. And Betty Edwards describes the consequences:

Most of us tend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are. (Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, p 134.)

It is quite a different thing to be concerned with what is real, rather than the perfect or ideal. Differeing information becomes important.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Mordecai]

Speaking of the story of Nephi killing Laban, I always thought it was a troubling story, until I truly understood it. Nephi, being the future king of a people and having been told he would be king by an angel, had authority to act as king and put to death anyone that would be a great harm to their salvation. He refused to kill Laban initially, until the Spirit said to him, "It is better that one man perish than a nation [Nephi's nation, whom he was personally responsible for, as their king] perish in unbelief." So, he was a hero to his people by doing as the Lord commanded, as the Lord delivered Laban into Nephi's hands. It wasn't an unjust death, as Laban had tried to kill them, had stolen their property and would have pursued them into the wilderness. Plus, it was a necessary means to an end, which a king must deal with at times. Hardly a doctrine for members of the Church to kill people.

Speaking of this book being made into a movie, "gay marriage" propaganda has done its job well of villanizing those who adhere to traditional values. Of course, the hatred and villanization will grow, founded solidly on "gay marriage" propaganda.

[Jeff K.]

You raise a good point Mordecai. Sometimes the most false and preposterous tales become fodder for the "true believers" ie those who are against Mormons for a variety of reasons. Truth has no place with such people, but agenda is the over arching theme.

[Jeff K.]

Regarding "cognitive dissonace", something far easier to diagnose in other people's eyes:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Faith_Cognitive_Dissonance_and_the_Psychology_of_Religious_Experience.html

One of the things that happens when one shifts to a paradigm that demands perfection, and also assumes that one is capable of discerning it, is that een the appearance of imperfection becomes decisive. Being decisive, it conveys more information. And Betty Edwards describes the consequences:

Most of us tend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are. (Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, p 134.)

It is quite a different thing to be concerned with what is real, rather than the perfect or ideal. Differeing information becomes important.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

An excellent source.

I note the following:

Fortunately, we are not left with emotion alone to discern God's hand in our lives. Reason, experience, counsel from others, and other forms of revelation may all assist us. In fact, I notice that emotion plays into only some of my spiritual experiences, and often only in a secondary way. More often the spiritual promptings and confirmations I receive come very quietly as something simply occurs to me with a kind of rightness that has no real emotion attached to it at all. Other times my emotions have been running high, but the clear voice of the Spirit is utterly calm and outside of the range of my thoughts or experience. Some of my clearest spiritual experiences have come as a question or statement in my mind that completely surprised me, or that took me a moment to take in and understand. Others have come as a pure love beyond my previous capacity to imagine. I have received impressions to do something that, when acted on, produced an amazing but utterly unpredictable result that was a clear answer to a prayer. And at least a few times God has simply told me something which was later confirmed but that I had no way of knowing by any other means. I expect that people from many religious backgrounds may have such experiences, and I am comfortable imagining God in many of them, but they are not easily explained away as a self-produced warm feeling. I am comfortable with being tentative about what I conclude from such experiences beyond the experience itself.

[Daniel2]

Mordecai and Jeff,

As I've always understood it, and according to what I've read by LDS BOM scholars, the Book of Mormon never mentions that Nephi became a king over his people--in fact, he declines doing so, even though the people wanted him to. Curious that I, who am being accused of being "ignorant" of the scriptures and historical context, has to be the one to clarify that point to you both.

Even so, whether or not Nephi eventually became a king (given that, according to the story, he served in a king-like capacity) later in his life is beside the point. I maintain that the alleged future political office of an individual who kills another unconscious man after, even if he was threatened himself, while testifying that God "told him to" should not be viewed as a credible defense. Politicians and rulers aren't above the law.

Jeff, it's sad that you once again resort to attempted character defamation, calling into question my motivation or desire to sin, rather stick to the subject.

Daniel2

[alter idem]

I think the mistake made in this thread was trying to draw a comparison to Nephi's killing of Laban and the Lafferty killings. Since the Book uses the Lafferty killings as it's main theme, here's a refresher:

The book opens with news accounts of the murder of Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter Erica. Brenda was married to the youngest Lafferty brother, Allen; older brothers Dan and Ron targeted their sister-in-law because they believed she was the reason Ron's wife left him (after refusing to allow him to marry a plural/second wife). Both men's extremism reached new heights when they became members of the School of the Prophets founded and led by Robert Crossfield. After joining the school, Ron claimed that God sent him revelations as communication with God is a core belief of fundamentalist Mormonism. Ron showed the members of the School of Prophets a written "removal revelation" that allegedly called for the killing of Brenda and her baby. After other members of the school failed to honor Ron's removal revelaton, the brothers quit the school.

The murders were particularly cruel, with Dan claiming that he slit the victims' throats. However, at trial, Chip Carnes, who was riding in the get-away car, testified that Ron said he had killed Brenda[1] and that Ron also thanked his brother for "doing the baby."

After the murders, the police found the written "revelation" concerning Brenda and Erica. After the press widely reported that Ron had received a revelation to kill Brenda and Erica, the Lafferty brothers conducted a recorded press conference at which Ron pointed out that the "revelation" was not addressed to him, but to "Todd" [a drifter whom Ron had befriended while working in Wichita, Kansas] and that the revelation called only for "removal" of Brenda and her baby and did not use the word, "kill." These remarks of Ron denying he had received a revelation to kill Brenda and Erica were shown to the jury at Ron's trial.[2]

I have searched but cannot see how the two incidents are in any way similar. Nephi was commanded to get the records. He and his brothers made several attempts to obtain the records, which ended with Laban stealing their property and trying to kill them. Killing is abhored by righteous people, but if you'll look in the scriptures, you will see examples where good people kill. Nephi's killing of Laban is upsetting, but not as upsetting as Samuel's killing of the King taken prisoner in the Bible. Those who believe in scripture and a just and righteous God will trust him--those who don't, will not. I think that non-religious people will have more trouble understanding God. Brenda Lafferty and her little baby never tried to kill Ron and Dan Lafferty--they posed no threat whatsoever. Anyone who knows God would recognize where that 'revelation' came from--not from him. They brutally murdered her and her child because Dan was so angry at what he thought was her meddling. Brenda and her child were completely innocent victims of a brutal crime.

[Jeff K.]

People will see what they want to see. It helps justify their stance, a man who jettisons God needs some kind of justification after all. How much easier it is to criticize what one apparently does not know and claims to have never seen, than it is to accept it and realize the consequences of such acceptance.

[alter idem]

Speaking of the story of Nephi killing Laban, I always thought it was a troubling story, until I truly understood it. Nephi, being the future king of a people and having been told he would be king by an angel, had authority to act as king and put to death anyone that would be a great harm to their salvation. He refused to kill Laban initially, until the Spirit said to him, "It is better that one man perish than a nation [Nephi's nation, whom he was personally responsible for, as their king] perish in unbelief." So, he was a hero to his people by doing as the Lord commanded, as the Lord delivered Laban into Nephi's hands. It wasn't an unjust death, as Laban had tried to kill them, had stolen their property and would have pursued them into the wilderness. Plus, it was a necessary means to an end, which a king must deal with at times. Hardly a doctrine for members of the Church to kill people.

I don't remember Nephi ever being told that he'd be King by an angel. His brothers accused him of wanting to be King over them (1Ne 16:38) and later, when the people wanted him to be King, (which makes it clear he WASN'T King) he tells them they should have no King (2Ne 5:18) so I'm not sure if using the justification that a King can kill his subjects works in this situation.

I don't think he has to be King to be a leader and responsible for his people and responsible to God to protect and defend them from danger. Laban certainly posed a threat to their group. He had ordered the killing of the sons of Lehi and he had men at his disposal that he could have used to hunt them down and carry out that order. Nephi found him in a vulnerable position and the spirit told him clearly that the opportunity to remove him as a clear threat to them was given to him. He shrunk from it, but came to understand that there was no other way to protect them and allow them to continue with the mission God had for them.

Speaking of this book being made into a movie, "gay marriage" propaganda has done its job well of villanizing those who adhere to traditional values. Of course, the hatred and villanization will grow, founded solidly on "gay marriage" propaganda.

Ah, cmon. Do we have to bring 'gay marriage' into this????? I purposely avoid those threads because I'm sick of the subject and it only serves to goad those who are sympathetic to the gay agenda to bring it up here. The topic is a book which tries to paint all LDS as potential killers ready to snap at any minute because of what the Lafferty's did.

[Wants2know]

Not good. I read that book a few years ago and as I recall, I felt it bordered on a hatchet job--but written in a way that it would not be evident to the casual reader. He massaged, manipulated and prodded the evidence to fit his agenda. I had to go later and read up on some of the information he included to get the true events--I doubt most audience members will take the time.

I also read his book "Into Thin Air" which would make a much better movie.

As I remember, he centers the story on the Lafferty brothers, who brutally murdered their sister in law and her little baby daughter (from the forensic evidence, while she stood crying in her crib) back in about 1982 in Provo. They were mainstream LDS, but got involved with a group of men, I think they called themselves the school of the Prophets. Anyway, they started thinking they should practice polygamy (of course) and the sister in law was standing up to them--speaking out against what they were doing. They killed her because of that (the one ringleader brother claimed he'd had a revelation that she should be killed). They are both at Point of the Mountain prison to this day. At one point, Mark Hoffman and one of the Lafferty brother's were cell mates.

Anyway, he uses that crime to go back and look at early LDS history here in Utah when the saints were first getting settled. There were a number of murders of non-LDS people which were blamed on the 'Mormons' in general--and on the church--Danites, blood atonement and that kind of stuff, so you have an idea where this is going.

The saints and church as a whole were often vilified for the crimes of individuals by the contemporary media of their time and often present day writers will use those news articles, books and novels as fact, even though there was no evidence to support the accusations.

"Into thin air" was made into a tv movie. I had similar issues with the Banner in Heaven, and I asked a lot of questions on here after I read it. The problem is the mix of the FLDS world and mainstream LDS… the book doesn't really make a differentiation - it's all "the mormons".

[KevinG]

After my initial "oh no not again" reaction I think about the impact of other unflattering and frankly false accounts of Mormons in general. This will be another few weeks of headlines, a somewhat mediocre box office return and another slander in the dustbin of history.

More people will get to heaven if I repent and do my home teaching and read scriptures with my children than if I protest the movie full time.

[Vance]

I don't remember Nephi ever being told that he'd be King by an angel.

1 Ne. 2:19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, . . .

22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.

This is the first of several.

[Pahoran]

"Under the Banner of Heave!" Good title!!

You are right; it was Joseph Smith that was trying to justify taking polygamous wives, against the teachings of his church, and behind his wife’s back.

Nevertheless, the story of Nehi murdering a passed-out drunk because he heard a voice in his head telling him to is still held up as a good example of what you should do in those situations, is it not? If the church were to conclusively teach that Nephi made the wrong choice in killing Laban, it would go a long way in distinguishing the LDS Church’s interpretation of Nephi from Lafferty’s interpretation.

Actually we already have a very reliable way of distinguishing the position of the Church of Jesus Christ from the self-serving misinterpretations of murderers like the Laffertys: namely, the fact that their misintepretations are argued by exactly and only two groups of people. These are (1) the murderers themselves, and (2) anti-Mormon polemicists of amply demonstrated dishonesty.

So you can set your mind at rest on that score. No honest person anywhere has ever claimed that the Laffertys' "interpretation" of 1st Nephi has anything to do with the understanding of any real Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Because, like the dieties of ancient Greece, Rome, Scandanavia, Asia, Africa, and South America, the dieties of the Middle East are not literally real, but are the creation of man in his own (and oftentimes rather primative and occassionally capricious) image.

I shall endeavour to resist the temptation to comment upon the palpable irony of this pontification.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ldsfaqs]

Mordecai and Jeff,

As I've always understood it, and according to what I've read by LDS BOM scholars, the Book of Mormon never mentions that Nephi became a king over his people--in fact, he declines doing so, even though the people wanted him to. Curious that I, who am being accused of being "ignorant" of the scriptures and historical context, has to be the one to clarify that point to you both.

There is a difference between being humble like George Washington, and George Washington not actually being President. Both are FACTS, because we know he was humble, but we also know he was actually President, and so are the same facts with Nephi.

Even so, whether or not Nephi eventually became a king (given that, according to the story, he served in a king-like capacity) later in his life is beside the point. I maintain that the alleged future political office of an individual who kills another unconscious man after, even if he was threatened himself, while testifying that God "told him to" should not be viewed as a credible defense. Politicians and rulers aren't above the law.

Daniel2

Laban was an entirely wicked man, who had put out a death warrant for Lehi's family. Lehi's family spent some time in Arabia, on primarily major travel routes before they finally left the continent. Laban's agents could have easily at some point killed them, which is likely something God knew, hence his command to put Laban to death.

There is no "sin" in killing a wicked man who makes every effort to kill you and your family. No matter if God had said anything to Nephi, and let alone the scriptures gotten. I would have killed the ******* for the very safety of my family, and there would have been NO SIN by doing it. Do you not understand the difference between murder and self defense? Do you not understand the difference between the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law?

Nephi was well within the spirit of the law. That's more important than the letter of it.

[Analytics]

"Under the Banner of Heave!" Good title!!

Actually we already have a very reliable way of distinguishing the position of the Church of Jesus Christ from the self-serving misinterpretations of murderers like the Laffertys: namely, the fact that their misintepretations are argued by exactly and only two groups of people. These are (1) the murderers themselves, and (2) anti-Mormon polemicists of amply demonstrated dishonesty.

So you can set your mind at rest on that score. No honest person anywhere has ever claimed that the Laffertys' "interpretation" of 1st Nephi has anything to do with the understanding of any real Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

Let’s just to make explicit what we’re talking about here. The Laffertys’ interpretation of the relevant doctrines can be summarized as follows:

1- God occasionally commands people to kill.

2- You should always obey God’s commandments.

I’m quite happy to hear that those beliefs don’t have anything to do with what “real” Latter-day Saints believe.

[alter idem]

Let’s just to make explicit what we’re talking about here. The Laffertys’ interpretation of the relevant doctrines can be summarized as follows:

1- God occasionally commands people to kill.

2- You should always obey God’s commandments.

I’m quite happy to hear that those beliefs don’t have anything to do with what “real” Latter-day Saints believe.

1- God occasionally commands people to kill.

2- You should always obey God’s commandments.

And is this also what the Bible teaches?

If you can see that Bible believers would be dismayed by this simplistic generalization, you'll understand why those who believe in the Book of Mormon would also disagree with your 'interpretation'.

[frankenstein]

Let’s just to make explicit what we’re talking about here. The Laffertys’ interpretation of the relevant doctrines can be summarized as follows:

1- God occasionally commands people to kill.

2- You should always obey God’s commandments.

I’m quite happy to hear that those beliefs don’t have anything to do with what “real” Latter-day Saints believe.

I would say No honest person can say you are wrong and no real Latter Day say would even suggest you were.

God commanded the house of Israel to commit genocide, when Saul spared the king of one people, Samuel or Nathan the Prophet used his own sword to slay the king, thus fulfilling Gods command. Abraham was willing to slay his own son, and I think it is the willingness that mattered.

[Analytics]

And is this also what the Bible teaches?

Since we've already established that "no honest person anywhere has ever claimed that the Laffertys' "interpretation" of 1st Nephi has anything to do with the understanding of any real Latter-day Saints," and since Mormons believe in the Bible, we can be quite certain that the Bible does not teach that.

[Pahoran]

Let’s just to make explicit what we’re talking about here. The Laffertys’ interpretation of the relevant doctrines can be summarized as follows:

1- God occasionally commands people to kill.

2- You should always obey God’s commandments.

Can it?

Yet they murdered a mother and child, contrary to the commandments. So they clearly didn't believe "you should always obey God’s commandments," did they? They saw themselves as entitled to set aside commandments at their convenience, didn't they?

There's not a whole lot of ytics in your analytics, is there?

I’m quite happy to hear that those beliefs don’t have anything to do with what “real” Latter-day Saints believe.

Well, since you clearly don't know, I'll be happy to tell you.

Incidentally, you don't need the scare quotes around "real." Not even Kraksmoker was able to conflate maniacs like the Laffertys with real Latter-day Saints anywhere.

Real Latter-day Saints, unlike the maniacal Laffertys and the utterly cynical anti-Mormons who wish to deceive others into thinking that they were representative Mormons, understand that the commandment to Nephi was a unique instruction for a unique set of circumstances that do not apply to anyone now living.

Real Latter-day Saints, unlike the maniacal Laffertys and the utterly cynical anti-Mormons who wish to deceive others into thinking that they were representative Mormons, understand that there is a clear and rather important difference between obtaining a scarce copy of the Scriptures for the benefit of one's posterity, as in Nephi's case, and maliciously and cruelly exacting revenge, as in the Laffertys' case.

Real Latter-day Saints, unlike the maniacal Laffertys and the utterly cynical anti-Mormons who wish to deceive others into thinking that they were representative Mormons, understand that our own personal revelations will never contradict the standing commandments of God. We further understand that any impressions that we might regard as revelations must be measured against the accepted commandments.

Furthermore, informed Latter-day Saints, unlike the maniacal Laffertys and the utterly cynical anti-Mormons who wish to deceive others into thinking that they were representative Mormons, are aware that Nephi's action in killing Laban was lawful under the legal canons in force in his time and place; the murders of Brenda and Erica Lafferty were not.

I don't doubt that the maniacal Laffertys might have tried to twist Nephi's case into a justification of their own vicious acts, if ever they had actually read the Book of Mormon; but only the most uninformed individuals would fall for the cynical anti-Mormon deception here in view.

These deceptions are so transparent that I'm astonished that you would fall for them. I hope you will be more vigilant in future.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

Real Latter-day Saints, unlike the maniacal Laffertys and the utterly cynical anti-Mormons who wish to deceive others into thinking that they were representative Mormons, understand that there is a clear and rather important difference between obtaining a scarce copy of the Scriptures for the benefit of one's posterity, as in Nephi's case, and maliciously and cruelly exacting revenge, as in the Laffertys' case.

It is dishonest of you to imply that I "wish to deceive others into thinking they were representative Mormons." I don't wish that at all. I am merely pointing out one isolated similarity in your beliefs, to you.

You are usually quite adamant that only adherents of a given religion are authorized to explain their motivation, and that only utterly dishonest cynics would question their sincerity. The fact that you don’t accept Dan Lafferty’s explanations for his own religiously-motivated actions is noted.

We further understand that any impressions that we might regard as revelations must be measured against the accepted commandments.

That is a fair point. But that being the case, it's ironic that there is no debate in the church about whether or not Abraham was acting morally when he set out to murder his son out of obedience to an impression that he regarded as revelation.

Furthermore, informed Latter-day Saints, unlike the maniacal Laffertys and the utterly cynical anti-Mormons who wish to deceive others into thinking that they were representative Mormons, are aware that Nephi's action in killing Laban was lawful under the legal canons in force in his time and place; the murders of Brenda and Erica Lafferty were not.

I have no idea why you say the Laffertys are unaware of this alleged fact. And it's ironic that you promote this alleged legality, as if you want me start proclaiming that Mormons think murder can be excused in the situations when it is legal according to the local laws at the time it is committed.

But was Nephi's act legal? John Welch argues that it was an "excusable homicide." He clarifies that this doesn't mean it was legal when he went on to say, "This is not to say that Nephi would have been acquitted and declared free to walk the streets of Jerusalem again had he been brought before a Jewish court in Jerusalem and tried for killing Laban, although Nephi could have raised several arguments in his own behalf if such a proceeding had ever taken place."

I don't doubt that the maniacal Laffertys might have tried to twist Nephi's case into a justification of their own vicious acts, if ever they had actually read the Book of Mormon; but only the most uninformed individuals would fall for the cynical anti-Mormon deception here in view.

These deceptions are so transparent that I'm astonished that you would fall for them. I hope you will be more vigilant in future.

When religious zealots tell me their motivations for doing what they do, I take it at face value. You’ve insisted innumerable times that that is the only decent thing to do. Your hypocrisy is noted.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

"When religious zealots tell me their motivations for doing what they do, I take it at face value".

So now the LDS are a bunch of religious zealots?

[Analytics]

Analytics:

"When religious zealots tell me their motivations for doing what they do, I take it at face value".

So now the LDS are a bunch of religious zealots?

Some show more zeal than others. To the extent you find that offensive, I retract it. Perhaps I should have said "professed devotees"?

[Pahoran]

It is dishonest of you to imply that I "wish to deceive others into thinking they were representative Mormons." I don't wish that at all. I am merely pointing out one isolated similarity in your beliefs, to you.

Who said that I was talking about you? (Proverbs 28:1.)

But since you brought the subject up: given your long established track record of misrepresenting the doctrines, policies and actions of the Church of Jesus Christ, I actually think you would be delighted to let any uninformed person think the Laffertys were representative Mormons, or that their crazed notions were somehow explainable in terms of normative LDS doctrine. Not that I think you would actually assert that, of course.

You are usually quite adamant that only adherents of a given religion are authorized to explain their motivation, and that only utterly dishonest cynics would question their sincerity. The fact that you don’t accept Dan Lafferty’s explanations for his own religiously-motivated actions is noted.

Mister Lafferty, who is no more a Latter-day Saint than you are, claimed a "religious motivation" for his vicious revenge killing. Given that he is a criminal attempting to explain away his crimes, his claimed motivation is clearly self-serving, and I have no reason to suppose that it was offered in good faith. Furthermore, he is not an adherent of the religion he is distorting and misrepresenting; he is, in fact, a zealous ex-Mormon. As such, his comments about our doctrine and scriptures are irrelevant and incompetent.

That is a fair point. But that being the case, it's ironic that there is no debate in the church about whether or not Abraham was acting morally when he set out to murder his son out of obedience to an impression that he regarded as revelation.

Nor does there need to be, given that Abraham did not carry out the sacrifice of Isaac.

I have no idea why you say the Laffertys are unaware of this alleged fact.

I have no reason to suppose that the Laffertys have any more knowledge of our scriptures and doctrines than any other apostates do. Especially in light of the valid evidence that they were ignorant of Exodus 20:13.

And it's ironic that you promote this alleged legality, as if you want me start proclaiming that Mormons think murder can be excused in the situations when it is legal according to the local laws at the time it is committed.

As I have no doubt you realise, that is not the argument I was making. I was pointing out that the legal status of Nephi's actions make a clear point of distinction from the Laffertys' vicious revenge killing.

And, as you perfectly well know, you have no business "proclaiming" (i.e. misrepresenting) what "Mormons think" on any subject. But you've never let that hold you back in the past.

When religious zealots tell me their motivations for doing what they do, I take it at face value. You’ve insisted innumerable times that that is the only decent thing to do. Your hypocrisy is noted.

First you try to argue that the Laffertys' presumed interpretation of the Book of Mormon, offered as self-serving justification for their crimes, is just like that of any Latter-day Saint. Now, in your zeal to accuse me of hypocrisy, you want me to regard them as bona fide adherents of another religion, and as such beyond the reach of LDS hermeneutics.

Would you like to stake out a single consistent position and stick to it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[blackstrap]

The Laffertys and their parents were family friends of myself and my parents. I knew them as teenagers.Their tragic tale is a prime example to me as how Satan can lead even the elect carefully down to h***. One of the missteps they took near the beginning was to fight against paying federal income tax,they fell in with the survivalist crowd,etc. If there is anyone who would come near to being a Son of Perdition ,Dan might qualify.I cannot connect the Dan I knew with the Dan he has become.

[Analytics]

Who said that I was talking about you?

You were clearly implying as much--your disingenuousness is not only unflattering, it is also boring.