The Church speaks up on SSM again

[ERMD]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It feels like the church is more concerned about politically carving out the space it is comfortable with than focusing on the most pressing moral issues in the world. They want a space where they are both free to dictate how they may discriminate against others and how others may NOT discriminate against them. It's a rational position for an organization, but it's not a moral one.

 

It is the fact that the Church is focusing on the most pressing moral issues in the world that has so many running around crying "foul" and claiming their feelings are being hurt.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Well, I guess it is official. The new fourth mission and biggest obsession of the church is now for all members to give of their time and money to do all they can to take away the civil rights of gay citizens no matter where they are. Hallelujah!!!  We have seen the light.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints went from being known for their discrimination of blacks to the most anti-gay church in the world   Lets do all we can to deny gay couples their civil rights.  Let's refuse to baptize their children. Let's label all gay couples as apostates  Let's  kick them out of the church wherever we can find them. Let's start brainwashing the youth to think we are doing this all out of love  and compassion And let's tell the youth that all of this aggression towards gay families came from God   

Such a legacy  I am sure Christ is so pleased  

 

 

If your idea of good parenting is to have your child baptized in a church which believes your lifestyle is sinful and wrong, and if you want your children taught that YOU are therefore sinful and wrong, then that is simply HORRIBLE PARENTING.

Call child protective services someone!  Quick !

The church has more interest in your child's welfare than you do

THAT fact is horribly troubling.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, ERMD said:

It is the fact that the Church is focusing on the most pressing moral issues in the world that has so many running around crying "foul" and claiming their feelings are being hurt.

It is the impression the Church is more concerned about being right about an issue than about being good, that's at issue.  At least to some of us.  That the Church will be so unreasonable in it's explanations speaks to the issue not being so pressing, and not being so worth dying on this hill.  When you enter the marketplace of ideas and your ideas lose based on merit, well someone has spoken.  There's no reason to continue needle issues when you've already been shown to be wrong. 

[Daniel2]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The examples of people not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous...

LDS Family Services no longer provides adoption services because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs....

Space to remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily.
 

 

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I should have said adoption agency services.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605313/LDS-Family-Services-shifts-from-adoption-agency-to-adoption-counseling.html

Ummmmmmmmm...... Did you happen to read the article you posted the link to, in your attempt to provide an example of your allegations that "the examples of people not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous"...?

While LDS Family Services did change their adoption services, it was not (in your words) "because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs."

In the article, LDS Family Services explicitly stated that they did not make the changes because of pressure for religious-based adoptions agencies to facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples.  From your article:

Quote

Tuesday's announcement comes at a time when religious-based adoption agencies around the country are under pressure to facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples. LDS Family Services also has been the subject of lawsuits about fathers' rights in adoption cases.

"None of these issues drive this decision," McConkie said.

"This predates any of these court cases [concerning the lawsuits about father's rights]," said Sherilyn Stinson, field group manager for the Salt Lake Valley offices of LDS Family Services.

Additionally, contrary to your point that the changes in LDS Family Services is an example of your allegation that Latter-day Saints' ability to "remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily," LDS Family Services clearly states that they made the changes so that they could "provide a broader array of services, more services, to single expectant parents, unwed parents, in the church primarily," and the changes they made "will enable even more LDS families to adopt because it will broaden the options for prospective adoptive parents."  Specifically (quoting more from the article you posted):

Quote

"The adoption program of LDS Family Services is changing," said David McConkie, the organization's group manager for services for children. "Our goal is to provide more opportunities for LDS families to adopt. Our goal also is to provide a broader array of services, more services, to single expectant parents, unwed parents, in the church primarily."

McConkie said his organization expects the new model will enable more LDS families to adopt because it will broaden the options for prospective adoptive parents.

Your example demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you're alleging--changes made to the adoption programs and services by LDS Family Services:

1. were not driven by the pressure for some religious-based adoption agencies to adopt to same-sex couples;
2. pre-dated the lawsuits concerning fathers' rights cases; and
3. widened/expanded/increased the number of services and adoptions to LDS families--not decreased them.

I hope this was merely an oversight or a misunderstanding on your part, rather than the all-too-often deliberate attempts to mischaracterize the situation to make it seem that same-sex couples are a threat to your religious liberty, when they really are not.

EDIT: One final note: the pressure on some religious-based adoptions agencies to facilitate same-sex adoptions, which the article mentions, leaves out a vital distinction... Those so-called "religious-based adoption agencies" which were receiving pressure to facilitate adoptions to same-sex couples were being run with publically-funded, tax-payer dollars.  Since they operated using federal or state American citizens' tax dollars, those "religious-based adoption agencies" were ALWAYS prohibited from discriminating against prospective parents by any and all of the protected classes.  For example, Catholic Adoption Services in Massachusetts couldn't deny a straight, Jewish couple on the basis of said couples' non-Catholic Faith, despite the fact that said prospective adoptive couple were living contrary to Catholicism's deeply-held religious beliefs.  ANY agency, even when they are religious-based, which accepts public funds to provide services to the public cannot discriminate against the public, who is funding said organizations' services. 

Although Catholic charities had been facilitating adoptions to people who were living contrary to the Catholic Faith for decades, once the law changed to allow same-sex adoption, the Catholic Adoption Agency decided to close it's doors, rather than stop receiving government funding.  Pardon my caps, but this is important: THIS WAS NO MORE AN ATTACK ON CATHOLICS' 'SPACE' TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION THAN THE FORMER REQUIREMENT PROHIBITING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENTS BASED ON RELIGION, RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ETC DUE TO THEIR USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS TO PAY FOR THEIR SERVICES.  Our country does not NOT consider or define "religious freedom" to include the ability for a religious-sponsored organization to discriminate against any families based on a protected class designation while simultaneously operating using public (tax-payer) funding.

LDS Family Services is and always has been under no such threat, because they choose NOT to use public funding--it's all privately funded through the church itself, so it's under no threat or pressure to change or lose it's public funding.

Daniel

Edited July 7, 2016 by Daniel2

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, ERMD said:

It is the fact that the Church is focusing on the most pressing moral issues in the world that has so many running around crying "foul" and claiming their feelings are being hurt.

We have a fundamental disagreement about what the most pressing moral issues are.

The church seems to think the most pressing issue is preventing SS couples from marrying and adopting children.

I tend to think issues of institutionalized and personal discrimination, violence, sxual trafficking, ensuring  people have food, water, shelter etc, among other issues, are more pressing moral problems the church could be addressing. The fight against SSM gets an inordinate majority of church attention and resources and it seems to be based in fear. They're afraid they will be impacted so they go on the offensive to prevent the slippery slope problems they imagine from materializing. In the process they hurt people and sound like a one trick pony playing their one key on the piano incessantly.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We have a fundamental disagreement about what the most pressing moral issues are.

The church seems to think the most pressing issue is preventing SS couples from marrying and adopting children.

I tend to think issues of institutionalized and personal discrimination, violence, sxual trafficking, ensuring  people have food, water, shelter etc, among other issues, are more pressing moral problems the church could be addressing. The fight against SSM gets an inordinate majority of church attention and resources and it seems to be based in fear. They're afraid they will be impacted so they go on the offensive to prevent the slippery slope problems they imagine from materializing. In the process they hurt people and sound like a one trick pony playing their one key on the piano incessantly.

I think that several senior apostles are driving this. This is likely to continue to be a focus in President Nelson's administration, unfortunately. 

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If your idea of good parenting is to have your child baptized in a church which believes your lifestyle is sinful and wrong, and if you want your children taught that YOU are therefore sinful and wrong, then that is simply HORRIBLE PARENTING.

Call child protective services someone!  Quick !

The church has more interest in your child's welfare than you do

THAT fact is horribly troubling.  

The truth is, I believe the church has a lot of good values and teaching for many.  I actually do encourage my children to attend and be active in the church. All of my children are straight. Most are active in the church.   The church works very well if you are straight.  For some reason, my children realize that they are responsible for their own salvation not mine.  I have clearly explained to them that I am perfectly accepting of whatever judgement God wants to put upon me.  Which is a completely different position that worrying about what judgement the church wants to put on me.  They seem fine with that.  We have a very good relationship and they love my partner and see that he is good for me.  They see my life is enriched and fulfilled by having someone to share my life with. I don't know if they think the church is wrong about it's attitudes towards gays.  I have never asked them.

That does not change the fact that the church is toxic to someone like me who is gay.  If I did have a gay child, I would definitely be CRAZY to encourage them to participate in the Mormon church where so much hostility exists.  

That being said.  Do you think I am a bad parent to see the good in the church for my children that are straight???  You are welcome to call child protective services on me if you wish.  PM me.  I will give you my phone number.

[ERMD]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We have a fundamental disagreement about what the most pressing moral issues are.

The church seems to think the most pressing issue is preventing SS couples from marrying and adopting children.

I tend to think issues of institutionalized and personal discrimination, violence, sxual trafficking, ensuring  people have food, water, shelter etc, among other issues, are more pressing moral problems the church could be addressing. The fight against SSM gets an inordinate majority of church attention and resources and it seems to be based in fear. They're afraid they will be impacted so they go on the offensive to prevent the slippery slope problems they imagine from materializing. In the process they hurt people and sound like a one trick pony playing their one key on the piano incessantly.

There are temporal/physical/immediate concerns and eternal concerns.  There is that which destroys the body, and that which destroys the soul.  The Church and Gospel of Christ deal with them all, but the focus is the latter.

 

CFR that the Church devotes a majority of its resources to the SSM issue.

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Ummmmmmmmm...... Did you happen to read the article you posted the link to, in your attempt to provide an example of your allegations that "the examples of people are not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous"...?

While LDS Family Services did change their adoption services, it was not (in your words) "because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs."

In the article, LDS Family Services explicitly stated that they did not make the changes because of pressure for religious-based adoptions agencies to facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples.  From your article:

Additionally, contrary to your point that the changes in LDS Family Services is an example of your allegation that Latter-day Saints' ability to "remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily," LDS Family Services clearly states that they made the changes so that they could "provide a broader array of services, more services, to single expectant parents, unwed parents, in the church primarily," and the changes they made "will enable even more LDS families to adopt because it will broaden the options for prospective adoptive parents."  Specifically (quoting more from the article you posted):

Your example demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you're alleging--changes made to the adoption programs and services by LDS Family Services:

a) were not driven by the pressure for some religious-based adoption agencies to adopt to same-sex couples;

b) pre-dated the lawsuits concerning fathers' rights cases; and

b) widened/expanded/increased the number of services and adoptions to LDS families--not decreased them.

I hope this was merely an oversight or a misunderstanding on your part, rather than the all-too-often deliberate attempts to mischaracterize the situation to make it seem that same-sex couples are a threat to your religious liberty, when they really are not.
 

Oh, I read the article, and I saw McConkie's claims that the upcoming changes to SSM laws had no bearing on the change in adoption services offered.

I just think that the reasons they provide are an example of PR and that SSM had everything to do with the changes.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, ERMD said:

There are temporal/physical/immediate concerns and eternal concerns.  There is that which destroys the body, and that which destroys the soul.  The Church and Gospel of Christ deal with them all, but the focus is the latter.

 

What in particular, regarding this issue, destroys the soul? 

[ERMD]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What in particular, regarding this issue, destroys the soul? 

Review the plan of salvation.

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

If your idea of good parenting is to have your child baptized in a church which believes your lifestyle is sinful and wrong, and if you want your children taught that YOU are therefore sinful and wrong, then that is simply HORRIBLE PARENTING.

Call child protective services someone!  Quick !

The church has more interest in your child's welfare than you do

THAT fact is horribly troubling.  

MF- you are usually so thoughtful but this response is absurd.

You're basically saying the church and it's ordinances, including receiving the gift of the holy ghost, has little or no value and that it would be horrible parenting for a believing parent to want those things for their children. You're asserting that the gift will do nothing for those children during their adolescence. It's a curious argument.

In my ward we have 3 ladies who attend regularly with their children even though they are living "in sin" with their boyfriends. Quick! Call protective services. Why would a parent want to have her children taught the law of chastity when they would clearly see she is breaking it? Why would I want to take my children to church where they are taught to keep commandments I don't perfectly keep. Won't they realize I'm a sinful person? For shame. But the church allows me to have my children baptized even though I'm a sinner. It allows the babies to be blessed and children to be baptized and receive the priesthood for the ladies in my ward who are sinners. It's a CHURCH. We are all sinners and it's only in the situation of SSM that the church decides to parent the children by refusing them salvific ordinances for their own good.

The policy you're referring to is black mark on the church. The church is pretending to have the children's best interest at heart but they don't. It's about not having the confusing optic of happy SSM families attending church. It's about avoiding lawsuits. It's a totally self-interested policy.

But perhaps the church doesn't feel it has anything to offer these families so they're pushing them out the door now, instead of later.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Review the plan of salvation.

Done.  So any help here? 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

MF- you are usually so thoughtful but this response is absurd.

You're basically saying the church and it's ordinances, including receiving the gift of the holy ghost, has little or no value and that it would be horrible parenting for a believing parent to want those things for their children. You're asserting that the gift will do nothing for those children during their adolescence. It's a curious argument.

In my ward we have 3 ladies who attend regularly with their children even though they are living "in sin" with their boyfriends. Quick! Call protective services. Why would a parent want to have her children taught the law of chastity when they would clearly see she is breaking it? Why would I want to take my children to church where they are taught to keep commandments I don't perfectly keep. Won't they realize I'm a sinful person? For shame. But the church allows me to have my children baptized even though I'm a sinner. It allows the babies to be blessed and children to be baptized and receive the priesthood for the ladies in my ward who are sinners. It's a CHURCH. We are all sinners and it's only in the situation of SSM that the church decides to parent the children by refusing them salvific ordinances for their own good.

The policy you're referring to is black mark on the church. The church is pretending to have the children's best interest at heart but they don't. It's about not having the confusing optic of happy SSM families attending church. It's about avoiding lawsuits. It's a totally self-interested policy.

But perhaps the church doesn't feel it has anything to offer these families so they're pushing them out the door now, instead of later.

Denying children baptism based on the sins of their parents is an indefensible position.  This policy causes far more harm to the church than it does to any gay family.  The fact that Elder Nelson is leading this charge is troubling.  And the fact that the church is so willing to do something so blatantly against the gospel of Christ in order to attack gay families is just as troubling.  Sometimes I wonder what the next move the church might do to attack gay families.  I honestly didn't see denying children membership coming.  I do wonder that the next assault will be.  

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, ERMD said:

There are temporal/physical/immediate concerns and eternal concerns.  There is that which destroys the body, and that which destroys the soul.  The Church and Gospel of Christ deal with them all, but the focus is the latter.

 

CFR that the Church devotes a majority of its resources to the SSM issue.

I'll change my statement to say "it seems" the church devotes a majority of its resources to the SSM issue. It seems this way to me because if I listen to the leaders speak in conference, the newsroom and any other venue, I only hear about SSM. If you have links to them addressing human trafficking and the other items I mentioned I'd be happy to see them.

As far as financial resources, I have no idea. No one has any idea and no one will until the church shares the information. However, based on Prop 8 and the continued legal battle the church has waged against SSM, I think it is reasonable to think they spend a good deal of money on this.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Denying children baptism based on the sins of their parents is an indefensible position.  This policy causes far more harm to the church than it does to any gay family.  The fact that Elder Nelson is leading this charge is troubling.  And the fact that the church is so willing to do something so blatantly against the gospel of Christ in order to attack gay families is just as troubling.  Sometimes I wonder what the next move the church might do to attack gay families.  I honestly didn't see denying children membership coming.  I do wonder that the next assault will be.  

It's a tough issue to talk about in Church.  Because the policy was created to protect families and because they love their gay brothers and sisters.  The problem is the effect of the policy is nothing but an attack, as you say.  Its made me all the more skeptical of the Church's methods.  If grown men thought long and hard and came up with this policy, they didn't seem to know what they were doing.  It was poorly conceived, even needing a couple of explanations.  And the stated purpose to protect children is not happening in the least. 

[ERMD]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Done.  So any help here? 

Nope.  If you don't get it after that, nothing I have to say will help.

[stemelbow]

Just now, ERMD said:

Nope.  If you don't get it after that, nothing I have to say will help.

I can't imagine how supporting SSM is destroying anyone's soul.  I don't see how gay people marrying civilly is going to destroy someone's soul.  I'd argue the opposite, in fact. 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, I read the article, and I saw McConkie's claims that the upcoming changes to SSM laws had no bearing on the change in adoption services offered.

I just think that the reasons they provide are an example of PR and that SSM had everything to do with the changes.

So, you believe that the Area Manager(s) for LDS Family Services lied (what you call "PR"...).

And you presumably believe the LDS Church's newspaper, The Deseret News, chose to print that lie (what you call "PR"), without any kind of clarification or correction.

That seems to say a lot about how much you believe we should believe representatives of Church organizations, and the Church's own 'news' publication (which is apparently not news, just regurgitated PR).

Even so... regardless of whether or not you believe the reasons given or printed, the fact remains that the changes INCREASED LDS Adoptions, not DECREASED them, as you previously claimed.

Unless you also believe LDS Family Services and the Deseret News lied about that, as well....

In which case, why bother posting links that entirely contradict the points you're trying to make...?

Additionally, you may have missed the EDIT I added to my previous post which clarifies that LDS Family Services does not receive any federal/state funding and never has, and as such, is under NO obligation to avoid discriminating against same-sex couples while providing full adoption services.  Therefore, none of the issues regarding a conflict of interest (due to the employment of federal/state funding) which prompted other Faith-based adoption services from making changes/closing apply to LDS Family Services, and it's highly unlikely (and likely entirely impossible) that they ever will.

So either way--whether we accept LDS Family Services and The Deseret News at their word, or consider the actual evidence otherwise--at the end of the day, your "adoption" example is entirely invalid, so far as this discussion is concerned.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Daniel2

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Second, we’re concerned that legalizing same-sex marriage substantially reduces the space available to people of faith who have traditional beliefs about marriage and family.  For members of the Church, marriage between a man and woman has always been core doctrine.  In places where same-sex marriage is now legal, our ability to remain true to all aspects of that doctrine is now increasingly challenged.

So they church is finding it increasingly challenging in its self described reduced "Space" that is available for it to believe in its traditional belief that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman...yet it seems to flourish and do quiet well sharing "Space" with other social ideas that conflict with its beliefs. 

Here is just a short list: 

Public Swimming Pools, Shopping Malls (not theirs) Lagoon or Grocery Stores open on Sundays

Bars and Restaurants that serve Alcohol

Adult themed topless (with pasties of course) Bars

Smoke Shops

Gambling Establishments (out side of Utah of course)  church seems to do quite well in Nevada

Thinking of Nevada...the church survives  in the same "Space" with Legal Prostitution as well

Colored Dress Shirts

 

So if the church does not feel restricted sharing "Space" with these areas that are unacceptable to Mormonism why then does it feel challenged  and restricted doing so in the SSM Space?

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It feels like the church is more concerned about politically 

and I insist our tax-exempt church shouldn't get involved in the politics. I agree our church has the right to speak on moral issues, but it shouldn't have the right to speak on political issues, there is a big difference. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church seems to think the most pressing issue is preventing SS couples from marrying and adopting children.

True, and we though our church believed in moral agency. 

[kllindley]

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

Just a direct answer to your question.  One area where my ability to live true to my beliefs is as an LGBT individual in a heterosexual marriage.  I have been married for 10 years and am very happy with my relationship.  However, the first year of our marriage was very difficult.  One of the only things that helped me make it through was working with a therapist who honored my right to decide how to live my life and helped my reach my goals.  The freedom of that therapist to do so is currently under attack.  In several states it is already illegal for a therapist to work with any teen who wants to decrease homosexual behavior.  But the original bills were not worded to only protect teens.  The intent is to make it illegal to encourage, assist, or even say that it is is possible for LBGT individuals to live their lives in harmony with traditional religious beliefs.  And the attack isn't stopping at licensed professionals.  A Jewish non-profit organization was shut down and heavily fined for the crime of disagreeing with popular consensus that Homosexuality is inherent, immutable, and never to be questioned.  The attack is continuing on other organizations.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The truth is, I believe the church has a lot of good values and teaching for many.  I actually do encourage my children to attend and be active in the church. All of my children are straight. Most are active in the church.   The church works very well if you are straight.  For some reason, my children realize that they are responsible for their own salvation not mine.  I have clearly explained to them that I am perfectly accepting of whatever judgement God wants to put upon me.  Which is a completely different position that worrying about what judgement the church wants to put on me.  They seem fine with that.  We have a very good relationship and they love my partner and see that he is good for me.  They see my life is enriched and fulfilled by having someone to share my life with. I don't know if they think the church is wrong about it's attitudes towards gays.  I have never asked them.

That does not change the fact that the church is toxic to someone like me who is gay.  If I did have a gay child, I would definitely be CRAZY to encourage them to participate in the Mormon church where so much hostility exists.  

That being said.  Do you think I am a bad parent to see the good in the church for my children that are straight???  You are welcome to call child protective services on me if you wish.  PM me.  I will give you my phone number.

The love and respect you have for your children as individuals...is huge.  I so respect you.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Just a direct answer to your question.  One area where my ability to live true to my beliefs is as an LGBT individual in a heterosexual marriage.  I have been married for 10 years and am very happy with my relationship.  However, the first year of our marriage was very difficult.

Your marriage wasn't alone in that. 

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

 One of the only things that helped me make it through was working with a therapist who honored my right to decide how to live my life and helped my reach my goals.  The freedom of that therapist to do so is currently under attack.  In several states it is already illegal for a therapist to work with any teen who wants to decrease homosexual behavior.

huh?  I wouldn't know what that means.  A teen doesn't want to have homosexual sex, even though he/she is gay, and a therapist can't work with or talk to such a teen?  That'd be weird and messed up.  Something that seems completely outside of the issue at hand, though.  Why would the government not allow a therapist to work with a teen who doesn't want to have sex?  That sounds ridiculous. 

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

 But the original bills were not worded to only protect teens.  The intent is to make it illegal to encourage, assist, or even say that it is is possible for LBGT individuals to live their lives in harmony with traditional religious beliefs.

Ok so which several states are we talking about?  I could see a law saying therapists can't teach kids not to be gay, or something.  But that seems like a far cry from what you're reporting. 

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

 And the attack isn't stopping at licensed professionals.  A Jewish non-profit organization was shut down and heavily fined for the crime of disagreeing with popular consensus that Homosexuality is inherent, immutable, and never to be questioned.  The attack is continuing on other organizations.  

hm...well, I'm interested to look into these cases.  Any links?