Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[Stone holm]

I'm looking forward to clear and specific references in support of each of your five claims.

 

I spent several hours last night trying to find a link to the Church bulletin that I remember reading about the interfaith program and Dallin Oaks, but could not find it.  So I will withdraw the claims, as I don't have time right now to dig further.  Unfortunately the cyber searches keep coming up with more recent activity of Dallin Oaks calling for interfaith cooperation to replace the failed moral majority -- that was not the program which I was referring to, but since I can't find that release I have no alternative other than withdraw the claim.  You are correct that the Church formally announced the subtitle change during the hiatus between Oaks administration of BYU and his call to the Apostleship..  Packer made the announcement in October Conference, to which I will let everyone refer to decide for themselves what one can glean on the reasoning for the change.  I believe you are correct that it came at the same time as the change in the cover to the paperback B of M which removed the bright picture of Moroni on the Temple and was made to resemble more a scripture like the Bible.  There was, I believe, a four year gap between Oaks at BYU and his call to the Apostleship during which he sat on the Utah Supreme Court.

[Scott Lloyd]

I spent several hours last night trying to find a link to the Church bulletin that I remember reading about the interfaith program and Dallin Oaks, but could not find it.  So I will withdraw the claims, as I don't have time right now to dig further.  Unfortunately the cyber searches keep coming up with more recent activity of Dallin Oaks calling for interfaith cooperation to replace the failed moral majority -- that was not the program which I was referring to, but since I can't find that release I have no alternative other than withdraw the claim.  You are correct that the Church formally announced the subtitle change during the hiatus between Oaks administration of BYU and his call to the Apostleship..  Packer made the announcement in October Conference, to which I will let everyone refer to decide for themselves what one can glean on the reasoning for the change.  I believe you are correct that it came at the same time as the change in the cover to the paperback B of M which removed the bright picture of Moroni on the Temple and was made to resemble more a scripture like the Bible.  There was, I believe, a four year gap between Oaks at BYU and his call to the Apostleship during which he sat on the Utah Supreme Court.

Here is the October 1982 general conference talk in which then-Elder Boyd K. Packer announced the addition of the subtitle to the Book of Mormon. Beyond the announcement itself, he does not say a whole about it specifically, but speaks of it in the context of the then-recent development of the new editions of the scriptures, drawing the analogy of threads wound into cords "that bind together in our hands the sticks of Judah and of Ephraim—testaments of the Lord Jesus Christ."

 

You should know also that by recent decision of the Brethren the Book of Mormon will henceforth bear the title “The Book of Mormon,” with the subtitle “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

The stick or record of Judah—the Old Testament and the New Testament—and the stick or record of Ephraim—the Book of Mormon, which is another testament of Jesus Christ—are now woven together in such a way that as you pore over one you are drawn to the other; as you learn from one you are enlightened by the other. They are indeed one in our hands. Ezekiel’s prophecy now stands fulfilled.

 

 

 

Certainly nothing in there about an ecumenical outreach to Evangelicals.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

However, if other potential resisters are gullible enough to be talked into not resisting the advancement of perversion (for fear of being labeled as bigoted and hateful, and with the hope of somehow slowing down the advancement of perversion), then they deserve the speedier advancement of perversion.

 

I am going to assume that your choice of words here was meant to cleverly demonstrate how one can still engage in hate speech even if one doesn't use certain slurs or expletives.  After all, describing someone's love for another person as a "perversion" is hateful.  It's just a slightly more polite way of calling them a [pick your favorite slur].  And since no good Mormon would ever use such language, you used a word that would convey the same level of derision and scorn.

 

According to the source of all truth in the universe (Google), a perversion is "the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended."  In that vein, one could rightly see homosexuality as a perversion.  Of course, the same thing could be said for anti-Mormon distortions of our doctrine, political ads that distort an opponent's position or even bad remakes of old movies.  Yet, we usually reserve the term "perversion" to describe the actions of pedophiles, people who expose themselves to strangers on the street, and the worst kind of sexual deviants (i.e., anyone who engages in practices that we find distasteful).

 

Using that term to describe a committed, monogamous and loving relationship between two consenting adults is akin to when protestant leaders use the term "cult" to describe Mormonism.  Under one definition, a cult is "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."  We fit that definition (as does any religious minority).  However, when anti-Mormons use this term, they are trying to convey more than doctrinal disparities.  They are trying to lump us in with the followers of Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, and the Heaven's Gate cult.  Most of us find it insulting, if not downright hateful, when outsiders describe our treasured church as a cult.

 

I suspect that gays and lesbians feel similarly to have their treasured relationships described that way.

[teddyaware]

I am going to assume that your choice of words here was meant to cleverly demonstrate how one can still engage in hate speech even if one doesn't use certain slurs or expletives.  After all, describing someone's love for another person as a "perversion" is hateful.  It's just a slightly more polite way of calling them a [pick your favorite slur].  And since no good Mormon would ever use such language, you used a word that would convey the same level of derision and scorn.

 

According to the source of all truth in the universe (Google), a perversion is "the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended."  In that vein, one could rightly see homosexuality as a perversion.  Of course, the same thing could be said for anti-Mormon distortions of our doctrine, political ads that distort an opponent's position or even bad remakes of old movies.  Yet, we usually reserve the term "perversion" to describe the actions of pedophiles, people who expose themselves to strangers on the street, and the worst kind of sexual deviants (i.e., anyone who engages in practices that we find distasteful).

 

Using that term to describe a committed, monogamous and loving relationship between two consenting adults is akin to when protestant leaders use the term "cult" to describe Mormonism.  Under one definition, a cult is "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."  We fit that definition (as does any religious minority).  However, when anti-Mormons use this term, they are trying to convey more than doctrinal disparities.  They are trying to lump us in with the followers of Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, and the Heaven's Gate cult.  Most of us find it insulting, if not downright hateful, when outsiders describe our treasured church as a cult.

 

I suspect that gays and lesbians feel similarly to have their treasured relationships described that way.

 

In the Book of Mormon, there are several examples of various communities who, while ripening in iniquity, were terribly offended and outraged when their sinful behavior was condemned by prophets. And why were these folks offended? because they considered themselves to be a spiritually sensitive and righteous living people. Just because some behavior or way of thinking may seem right, noble or good in the eyes of some does not automatically make that behavior or way of thinking good in the eyes of God. The devil is a master of deceit, and to his thinking the most important thing he can do is to get the children of men to believe that their sinful behaviors are not sinful. Well spoke the wise king when he said: ""There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof is the ways of death." Again, just because something feels right does not necessarily make it right.  

 

Edited October 29, 2013 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I am going to assume that your choice of words here was meant to cleverly demonstrate how one can still engage in hate speech even if one doesn't use certain slurs or expletives.  After all, describing someone's love for another person as a "perversion" is hateful.  It's just a slightly more polite way of calling them a [pick your favorite slur].  And since no good Mormon would ever use such language, you used a word that would convey the same level of derision and scorn.

 

According to the source of all truth in the universe (Google), a perversion is "the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended."  In that vein, one could rightly see homosexuality as a perversion.  Of course, the same thing could be said for anti-Mormon distortions of our doctrine, political ads that distort an opponent's position or even bad remakes of old movies.  Yet, we usually reserve the term "perversion" to describe the actions of pedophiles, people who expose themselves to strangers on the street, and the worst kind of sexual deviants (i.e., anyone who engages in practices that we find distasteful).

 

Using that term to describe a committed, monogamous and loving relationship between two consenting adults is akin to when protestant leaders use the term "cult" to describe Mormonism.  Under one definition, a cult is "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."  We fit that definition (as does any religious minority).  However, when anti-Mormons use this term, they are trying to convey more than doctrinal disparities.  They are trying to lump us in with the followers of Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, and the Heaven's Gate cult.  Most of us find it insulting, if not downright hateful, when outsiders describe our treasured church as a cult.

 

I suspect that gays and lesbians feel similarly to have their treasured relationships described that way.

 

In the Book of Mormon, there are several examples of various communities who, while ripening in iniquity, were terribly offended and outraged when their sinful behavior was condemned by prophets. And why were these folks offended? because they considered themselves to be a spiritually sensitive and righteous living people. Just because some behavior or way of thinking may seem right, noble or good in the eyes of some does not automatically make that behavior or way of thinking good in the eyes of God. The devil is a master of deceit, and to his thinking the most important thing he can do is to get the children of men to believe that their sinful behaviors are not sinful. Well spoke the wise king when he said: ""There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof is the ways of death." Again, just because something feels right does not necessarily make it right.  

 

 

teddyaware, you need to go in and edit your post by taking your comments out of the quote box and putting them below it so that we can distinguish between your response and what you are responding to.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am going to assume that your choice of words here was meant to cleverly demonstrate how one can still engage in hate speech even if one doesn't use certain slurs or expletives.  After all, describing someone's love for another person as a "perversion" is hateful.  It's just a slightly more polite way of calling them a [pick your favorite slur].  And since no good Mormon would ever use such language, you used a word that would convey the same level of derision and scorn.

 

According to the source of all truth in the universe (Google), a perversion is "the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended."  In that vein, one could rightly see homosexuality as a perversion.  Of course, the same thing could be said for anti-Mormon distortions of our doctrine, political ads that distort an opponent's position or even bad remakes of old movies.  Yet, we usually reserve the term "perversion" to describe the actions of pedophiles, people who expose themselves to strangers on the street, and the worst kind of sexual deviants (i.e., anyone who engages in practices that we find distasteful).

 

Using that term to describe a committed, monogamous and loving relationship between two consenting adults is akin to when protestant leaders use the term "cult" to describe Mormonism.  Under one definition, a cult is "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."  We fit that definition (as does any religious minority).  However, when anti-Mormons use this term, they are trying to convey more than doctrinal disparities.  They are trying to lump us in with the followers of Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, and the Heaven's Gate cult.  Most of us find it insulting, if not downright hateful, when outsiders describe our treasured church as a cult.

 

I suspect that gays and lesbians feel similarly to have their treasured relationships described that way.

When we condemn any sex outside of marriage as sinful and contrary to the commandments of God, do you regard that as hate speech?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

When we condemn any sex outside of marriage and sinful and contrary to the commandments of God, do you regard that as hate speech?

 

Sex within a same-sex marriage would be sinful, as well, would it not? So, it's not just that sex outside of marriage is sinful but that certain types of sexuality are always sinful. At least that's how I understand the church's position.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sex within a same-sex marriage would be sinful, as well, would it not? So, it's not just that sex outside of marriage is sinful but that certain types of sexuality are always sinful. At least that's how I understand the church's position.

Yes, I think that's a correct understanding.

 

Moreover, non-marital sex between heterosexual persons can be rationalized as the expression of "a loving relationship" just as easily as anything else.

 

The erosion of religious freedom has been very much on the minds of the Brethren of late.

 

I just checked Dan Peterson's blog and found this link to a talk given in February by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland.

 

The thought just occurred to me after reading mormonweb's post: Are we going to see a time when we as Latter-day Saints must be apprehensive about teaching our doctrine and what we regard as the commandments of God for fear of being prosecuted for hate speech?

 

It's a chilling thought.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

 And since no good Mormon would ever use such language, you used a word that would convey the same level of derision and scorn.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/09/for-the-strengthening-of-youth?lang=eng

 

The Lord specifically forbids certain behaviors, including all sexual relations before marriage, petting, sex perversion (such as homosexuality, rape, and incest)...

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/section-8-pauls-witness-as-a-missionary/chapter-39-man-is-justified-by-faith?lang=eng

 

“… where stands the perversion of homosexuality? Clearly it is hostile to God’s purpose in that it negates his first and great commandment to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ If the abominable practice became universal it would depopulate the earth in a single generation. It would nullify God’s great program for his spirit children in that it would leave countless unembodied spirits in the heavenly world without the chance for the opportunities of mortality and would deny to all the participants in the practice the eternal life God makes available to us all.

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/sexual-immorality?lang=eng#

 

Homosexuality and other sex perversions are an abomination:Lev. 18:22–23

 

Edited October 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/09/for-the-strengthening-of-youth?lang=eng

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/section-8-pauls-witness-as-a-missionary/chapter-39-man-is-justified-by-faith?lang=eng

 

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/sexual-immorality?lang=eng#

 

Be very careful about using the OT in justifying acting agaist others on behalf of those beliefs.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Are we going to see a time when we as Latter-day Saints must be apprehensive about teaching our doctrine and what we regard as the commandments of God for fear of being prosecuted for hate speech?

 

It's a chilling thought.

 

That is the threat, isn't it?

[Scott Lloyd]

That is the threat, isn't it?

Very much so.

 

Some people are crowing about how the Church leaders have backed away from resisting legalized same-sex marriage. I think what has happened is that they are now preoccupied with efforts to preserve essential First Amendment liberties: freeom of speech and of the press, not to mention religious freedom.

[Scott Lloyd]

Be very careful about using the OT in justifying acting agaist others on behalf of those beliefs.

Do you regard condemnation of what one regards as sinful behavior as "acting against others"?

[The Nehor]

"The tongue is an unruly member"

I move we just ban speech in general.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Some people are crowing about how the Church leaders have backed away from resisting legalized same-sex marriage. I think what has happened is that they are now preoccupied with efforts to preserve essential First Amendment liberties: freeom of speech and of the press, not to mention religious freedom.

 

Yep. If for no other reason, the Church's involvement in the passage of Proposition 8 in America -- and specifically the response to that involvement -- has been invaluable in showing us clearly what is in the works for people like us.

 

By the way, I hope the Saints in America are sufficiently grateful they have something like a First Amendment to appeal to and seek refuge under. Where I live, we've already had one Protestant pastor gaoled for 'hate speech' for preaching from the Bible.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[wenglund]

I am going to assume that your choice of words here was meant to cleverly demonstrate how one can still engage in hate speech even if one doesn't use certain slurs or expletives. 

 

You are free to jump to whatever false assumptions that suit your fancy. You are also free to abuse the term "hate speech" in ways that trivialize real and legitimate hate speech. And, you are free to employ such fallacious tactics, and you may likely do so in lieu of a reasoned response.

 

 

 

After all, describing someone's love for another person as a "perversion" is hateful.

 

You mistakenly assume that I was describing "someone's love."  I wasn't. Instead, I was referring to certain sexual behaviors/relationships. 

 

And, you also mistakenly confused practical classification with hate (see below).

 

 

 

It's just a slightly more polite way of calling them a [pick your favorite slur].  And since no good Mormon would ever use such language, you used a word that would convey the same level of derision and scorn.

 

You are projecting derision and scorn onto a practical classification. So, whatever hate you may be sensing, may really be coming from within you (again, see below).

 

 

 

According to the source of all truth in the universe (Google), a perversion is "the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended."  In that vein, one could rightly see homosexuality as a perversion.

 

Not only rightly, but one can practically classify accordingly, and in a non-hateful way--which is what I did.

 

 

 

Of course, the same thing could be said for anti-Mormon distortions of our doctrine, political ads that distort an opponent's position or even bad remakes of old movies.

 

Correct. Those things can be practically classified as a perversion, and this in a non-hateful way.

 

 

 

Yet, we usually reserve the term "perversion" to describe the actions of pedophiles, people who expose themselves to strangers on the street, and the worst kind of sexual deviants (i.e., anyone who engages in practices that we find distasteful).

 

I don't know that "we" (you may, but I don't) reserve the term to just those sexual behaviors, but it does reasonably apply in the cases you listed, and it would not rightly be considered as "hate speech" for me to reasonably apply the term "perversion" in those cases--or others that are also fitting.

 

 

 

Using that term to describe a committed, monogamous and loving relationship between two consenting adults is akin to when protestant leaders use the term "cult" to describe Mormonism. Under one definition, a cult is "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."  We fit that definition (as does any religious minority).  However, when anti-Mormons use this term, they are trying to convey more than doctrinal disparities.  They are trying to lump us in with the followers of Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, and the Heaven's Gate cult.

 

First of all, and again, I didn't use the term in regards to commitment or monogamy or love, but in regards to sexual behaviors/relationships.

 

Second, I get the point about guilt by association. However, that wasn't my intent. I am not calling homosexual behaviors perverse for the purpose of guilt by association with pedophilia and the like, but rather because the categorization fits homosexual behavior/relationships.

 

 

 

Most of us find it insulting, if not downright hateful, when outsiders describe our treasured church as a cult.

 

You might. But I am not sure if "most of us" do. I know I don't view it as insulting or hateful. Over the last several decades that I have defended my faith, on the rare occasions that I have objected to the use of the term "cult" in reference to my treasured faith, it was because it tended to be misleading or idiosyncratically applied.

 

Again, if you are seeing insult and hate, it may actually be coming from within you.

 

 

 

I suspect that gays and lesbians feel similarly to have their treasured relationships described that way.

 

If they do, then, as with you, it may suggest more about gays and lesbians than those, such as myself, who are legitimately and practically using the term "perversion."

 

Might I suggest that you concern yourself less with secular political correctness and more with the moral and spiritual good of mankind. Doing so may lessen the risk of you launching yourself into an ironic bout of misguided self-righteous judgementalism, as you have done here. Just a thought.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 29, 2013 by wenglund

[mormonnewb]

 

Might I suggest that you concern yourself less with secular political correctness and more with the moral and spiritual good of mankind. Doing so may lessen the risk of you launching yourself into an ironic bout of misguided self-righteous judgementalism, as you have done here. Just a thought.

 

 

To be accused of "self-righteous judgementalism" for objecting to your use of unnecessarily pejorative terms to describe others is ironic to say the least.  As for my concern, it is for the well-being of our beloved church.  A perception of bigotry on our part (whether merited or not) will hamper the spread of the Gospel among certain groups.  Our pre-1978 stance on African-Americans still works to prevent many potential saints from even considering our message of the restored Gospel.  So if the choice is between using intentionally inflammatory language (e.g., "perversion") or being concerned with "secular political correctness," I'll choose the latter any day.  Unless, of course, you can find some authority urging us saints to deliberately offend others who do not agree with us ... yet.

[The Nehor]

 

The thought just occurred to me after reading mormonweb's post: Are we going to see a time when we as Latter-day Saints must be apprehensive about teaching our doctrine and what we regard as the commandments of God for fear of being prosecuted for hate speech?

 

It's a chilling thought.

Maybe, but I will not start worrying until the canaries in the coal mine start dying off. Westboro maybe?

[mormonnewb]

When we condemn any sex outside of marriage as sinful and contrary to the commandments of God, do you regard that as hate speech?

It is only hate speech to the extent that we use "hateful" words in doing so, such as calling their relationships a "perversion."  Why not simply express it in the term you used -- "contrary to the commandments of God"?  I think that succinctly and fairly sums up our objection without adding undue derision and scorn.  After all, most people in America don't abide by the commandments of God in terms of the Word of Wisdom.  However, we don't go around calling these people "perverts" for perverting God's laws of health.  And if we did, how effective do you think we'd be in spreading the Gospel?

 

I just don't see any reason why we must be cruel to be right.

[Stone holm]

Very much so.

 

Some people are crowing about how the Church leaders have backed away from resisting legalized same-sex marriage. I think what has happened is that they are now preoccupied with efforts to preserve essential First Amendment liberties: freeom of speech and of the press, not to mention religious freedom.

 

I have rationalized that it was always about that.  The Church simply needed to make an indelible doctrinal statement in order to use it as a shield in hypothetical future contests.  Personally, never fully subscribed to the concept that the best defense is a good offense, except possibly in basketball.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep. If for no other reason, the Church's involvement in the passage of Proposition 8 in America -- and specifically the response to that involvement -- has been invaluable in showing us clearly what is in the works for people like us.

 

By the way, I hope the Saints in America are sufficiently grateful they have something like a First Amendment to appeal to and seek refuge under. Where I live, we've already had one Protestant pastor gaoled for 'hate speech' for preaching from the Bible.

I agree the First Amendment is to be cherished.

 

I understand the Brethren are concerned about the erosion of religious liberties not just in the United States but globally as well.

[mormonnewb]

 

The thought just occurred to me after reading mormonweb's post: Are we going to see a time when we as Latter-day Saints must be apprehensive about teaching our doctrine and what we regard as the commandments of God for fear of being prosecuted for hate speech?

 

It's a chilling thought.

 

I don't think that we will suffer legal prosecution for hate speech but we very well may suffer social and economic persecution.  Churches are generally free to preach any doctrine, so long as it doesn't incite violence or lawfulness.  Churches are also free to be as exclusive as they like in their religious practices (e.g., male-only clergy, etc.).  The government has shown no inclination to impinge on any church's rights in these areas.  For example, Bob Jones University had a ban on interracial marriage until 2000.  That's almost 50 YEARS since the Supreme Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage.

 

However, while the government didn't go after Bob Jones' church, the rest of society hit them HARD.  The church was (and to some extent, still is) a laughing stock.  There were many companies that didn't recruit students from BJU.  Many schools also refused to compete against them in sports.

 

If we experience persecution for our stance, it will be along these lines.  I can easily foresee a time when, say, Stanford refuses to play BYU in basketball.  I also can see some business groups and governments going as far as boycotting Utah as a site to hold their conventions.  And, in truth, they will have every right to do so because religious freedom goes both ways.

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe, but I will not start worrying until the canaries in the coal mine start dying off. Westboro maybe?

It may already be too late then. That the Brethren are raising a call of alarm is enough for me to pay attention.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think that we will suffer legal prosecution for hate speech but we very well may suffer social and economic persecution.  Churches are generally free to preach any doctrine, so long as it doesn't incite violence or lawfulness.  Churches are also free to be as exclusive as they like in their religious practices (e.g., male-only clergy, etc.).  The government has shown no inclination to impinge on any church's rights in these areas.  For example, Bob Jones University had a ban on interracial marriage until 2000.  That's almost 50 YEARS since the Supreme Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage.

 

I think what has the Brethren worried is efforts to prevent people of faith -- or faith groups themselves -- from participating in the public dialogue or in the political process. "Freedom of worship" has become a crafty code phrase with a more limited meaning than the broader "freedom of religion." To some people, "freedom of worship" communicates that I can observe whatever religious rituals I want within my own community, so long as I keep it within closed doors. By their thinking, it does not grant me participation in the broader community if that participation is drawn from or related to the religious values I cherish.

[wenglund]

To be accused of "self-righteous judgementalism" for objecting to your use of unnecessarily pejorative terms to describe others is ironic to say the least.  As for my concern, it is for the well-being of our beloved church.  A perception of bigotry on our part (whether merited or not) will hamper the spread of the Gospel among certain groups.  Our pre-1978 stance on African-Americans still works to prevent many potential saints from even considering our message of the restored Gospel.  So if the choice is between using intentionally inflammatory language (e.g., "perversion") or being concerned with "secular political correctness," I'll choose the latter any day.  Unless, of course, you can find some authority urging us saints to deliberately offend others who do not agree with us ... yet.

 

Setting aside your confused sense of irony, in your hasty and unapologetic PC nannying, you continue to misjudge the intent and deliberateness of my comments and my use of the word "perverse."

 

Again, my intent wasn't to inflame or offend, but practical categorization.

 

If people, such as yourself, are inflamed and offended by my practical categorizations, then that is your problem. Not mine. It is this kind of manipulative hypersensitivity and lack of humility that creates the real barriers to receiving the gospel of Christ.

 

Having said this, you have been corrected twice now on your mistaken judgments. If you are genuinely concerned with not inflaming and offending people, then you won't repeat the mistaken judgments yet again.

 

In other words, don't hate me because I don't genuflect to your pop cultural bullying. (And, yes, I am being intentionally ironic).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-