●Well, Frankie, I certainly don’t agree that the “guilt of sin” should be used to “control productive man.” In fact, I would say that Christianity engenders economic productivity through its admonitions on hard work (“He shall not work shall not eat” St. Paul and the Parable of the Talents), its demand for honesty in business, and its strict censure of envy. “Faking It” is making the case that it is the perversion of Christianity (engendered by the Enlightenment and Romanticism) that has brought about modern sentimentalism. And sentimentalism is a huge drag on economic advancement (through extreme environmentalism and the quest for utopian “social justice”). Therefore, it is Christian morality pulled apart, diluted, and cut free from its hard-edged view of man’s propensity for evil, that has been popularized as “compassion” and “caring” which you probably object to. I do as well.

●Thanks, BB, one of the author’s of “Faking It” references Chesterton and this powerful insight from him that you have quoted. Pity becomes a form of sentimentalism when it is isolated from the truth or from justice.

●If you read the post, hopefully, you noted that it is about one of the “Big Ideas” in the book and not about the many examples of sentimentalism that can be referenced. In case you missed it, here is what I wrote. Please think about and respond to the Big Idea before you start demanding particulars.

In this post I will present just one of their incisive ideas. I highly recommend this book to all...One of the key points here is that modern sentimentalism derives much of its moral justification from Christianity; however, its morality is stripped of the hard realism and tough virtues of Christianity. What is left is more affect rather than effect--more self-pleasuring emotional posturing than actual moral action...“Faking It” posits that at its core, Western sentimentality is “a perversion of Christianity.” Most specifically, sentimentality is a modern form of the ancient heresy of Pelagianism. Pelagius was a fifth-century monk who denied the doctrine of Original Sin and believed that man is capable--through his own free-will--of saving himself.

●By the way, Frankie, who is a non-theist immediately understood the implications of Pelagianism and sentimentality.

I know you can do it.

●Do what?

●First of all, Gecko, I seriously doubt that anyone here on TFD thinks that you actually have any comprehension of how Pelagianism is related to 19th century Romanticism and why it is the key theological/philosophical error of Marxist and liberal utopianism. By the way, Pelagianism is one of the key theological errors of the LDS. As you know, the LDS denies Original Sin and has a sentimental view of humanity that can be traced right back to Romanticism incarnated in the US as Transcendentalism. While this sentimentalism has colored many modern American institutions; the LDS has bought the Pelagian error lock, stock and barrel.

●I personally have serious doubts that a committed Mormon can even allow himself to objectively think about “Faking It” or Pelagianism. Because of the LDS’s fear-based commitment to anti-intellectualism its adherents must--whenever challenged to think critically--immediately move to their automatic default position of relying on the hugely subjective “burning in the bosom.” Or worse, when they are challenged intellectually, they crank up the mendacity or ad hominem attacks. Please prove me wrong.

●Are you speaking of the “order, peace and mondial harmony” experienced and enjoyed in places like the Soviet Union, Red China, the Pol Pot regime, North Korea, East Germany, and Cuba?

●Here is a thought Toadie. Marxism is derived from Enlightenment philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau clearly abhorred the Christian doctrine of Original Sin and postulated that the locus of anti-social behavior was not the individual because an “uncorrupted morals” prevail in the “state of nature.” Rather, anti-social behavior spring from bad social systems. Hence the individual is not the locus of evil actions. This led directly to his view that “the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody” (Discourse on Inequality). This Romanticized and sentimentalized view of mankind is at the center of utopianism in all of its manifestations. The historical results of this wrong-headed notion can be found in the many “People’s Paradises” grounded on Rousseauian/Marxist ideology. It began with the bloodthirsty French guillotine and then went magnum in the 20th century producing torrents and rivers of blood. This was all for the sake of achieving a blissful “state of nature” where there was no religion, no God and no private property. You may consider this a state of “peace” and “harmony” but I will stay with the Founding Fathers shielded by rights that have been “endowed” by the “Creator.” The atheistic paradise is a gulag.

●Oh, realllly! The LDS is not Pelagian in regard to Original Sin, huh? Let’s take a look, shall we.

●First, here is the Pelagian view as described in Wikipedia:

It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin.

●Now let’s hear from the LDS official website on the issue:

Absolutely not. There is no such thing as original sin as such is defined in the creeds of Christendom. Such a concept denies the efficacy of the atonement. Our revelation says: “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning”—meaning that spirits started out in a state of purity and innocence in preexistence—“and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God” (D&C 93:38)—meaning that all children start out their mortal probation in purity and innocence because of the atonement. Our revelations also say, “The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.” (Moses 6:54.)

Since there is no such thing as original sin, as that expression is used in modern Christendom, it follows that children are not conceived in sin. They do not come into the world with any taint of impurity whatever.

According to Christ’s original doctrine as restored through Joseph Smith, the Fall made both possible and necessary the Savior’s atoning for our sins. Human nature is neither inherently evil nor inherently good. We become evil or good based on interaction between the Lord’s influence and the choices we make—choices unavailable in the garden before Adam and Eve fell and only made possible because of the Savior’s atonement.

You wrote: The LDS do not hold to Pelagius on all that he claims or Augustine for that matter. Let's just say, the LDS have a more enlightened point of view in the 21st century. We do not deny the doctrine of the fall as you have stated Thom. Against Augustine, man is frequently inclined to avoid sin and can choose to avoid sin with spiritual resources. Against views attributed to Pelagius, Grace is required to achieve righteousness after all we can do.

●Okay, now notice the following from the Gospel Principles on the subject:

Those who come to love “Satan more than God” (Moses 5:28) will to that degree become “carnal, sensual, and devilish” (Moses 5:13; Moses 6:49) by nature—“natural men.” On the other hand, those who accept Christ’s grace by their faith, repentance, baptism, and continued striving will ultimately put off “the natural man” and become “a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord.” (Mosiah 3:19.) They will then be good by nature.

●First, notice the parallelism between those who through the activity of loving “Satan more than God” become “natural men” and those who “ultimately” “by their faith, repentance, baptism, and continued striving” are then given “Christ’s grace” to become “good by nature.” Or as Gecko aptly puts it, “Grace is required to achieve righteousness after all we can do (meaning “by their faith, repentance, baptism and continued striving.”) In short, the “all we can do” includes having faith, repenting of our sins, being baptized and continuing steadfastly in good works. If someone does these things then they receive “Christ’s grace” to become “a saint” and “good by nature.” In LDS theology, “faith” comes before “repentance.” This is mentioned in other LDS doctrinal statements as well. So, in the LDS, repentance, faith, baptism and “continued striving” in good works are means to receive “Christ’s grace.” This is nothing short a complete denial of Original Sin (which the LDS makes no bones about) and clearly Pelagian in its essential teaching. At minimum, LDS theology is an extreme version of “semi-Pelagianism.”

●In orthodox Christian theology (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), God’s grace is necessary for repentance, faith, and “striving” in good works. None of these things can be done without God’s grace. It is God’s grace from first to last that empowers the believer to these things. Baptism, which is a rite of the church, in many orthodox Churches is also a means of grace. In others, it is a sign of God’s grace.

Now read again about Pelagianism:

It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin.

●No, Gecko, I’m not ringing my hands. I am simply calmly and clearly demonstrating to you that LDS theology both denies Original Sin (no surprise) and is Pelagian (humans are morally neutral and can choose to have faith, repent, be baptized and persevere in good works after which they can receive Christ’s grace).

●People are not Christians because they believe in the fall. Both Platonists and Gnostics believed in a fall of humanity. However, what they meant by a “fall” was very much different than what is taught in Christian doctrine. Likewise, the content of LDS teaching on the fall is strikingly different than the Biblical and historical doctrine of the fall.

●There are several wrong theories of the atonement. LDS theology is derivative of the ideas of Transcendentalism engendered in the early 19th century in the American Northeast. Transcendentalism was the American incarnation of Enlightenment Romanticism. Two of the core concepts in Christianized Transcendentalism were a strong objection to Original Sin and a sentimentalized view of human nature that posited its neutrality. Joseph Smith obviously picked up on these ideas when formulating LDS doctrine. LDS atonement is an extremely watered down version of Christ’s suffering for sinful humanity.

●Conservative Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants agree that all men “sin of (their) own accord.” The question at hand, though, is salvation. In orthodox Christian theology, man cannot have “faith, repent, be baptized” and strive in good works without God’s grace.

●It might be helpful for you to keep in mind that I am not your typical marginally informed Christian. Therefore, the usual LDS techniques of deflection, false nomenclature, and the use of red herrings will not be very effective. The key assertion here related to the post is that “Faking It” posits modern Pelagianism and its denial of Original Sin as the philosophic center of sentimentalism. I’ve made the case that the LDS buys into both of these notions. Hence, it has a sentimentalized view of human nature that can historically be traced right back to Transcendentalism and its European cousins; namely, the Enlightenment and Romanticism. On these issues, LDS theology is far from a “restoration” of the “true gospel”; rather, it is a reincarnation of Pelagianism.

You wrote: How fanciful and sentimental you have it. You go around blaming Adam and Eve, washing your hands of your personal sin while excusing yourselves for your plight. He seems to be your scapegoat. It doesn't make sense to me... So,as a four-year-old boy, other than Adam and Eve should I be carrying anybody else's sins on my shoulder also?

●First of all, you sound so much like Jean-Jacques Rousseau that it is amazing. Or, I don’t know if you ever read Wordsworth “Ode Intimations of Immortality from Recollection of Early Childhood, but, it is nearly the perfect literary embodiment of sentimental Romanticism’s view of innocent human nature. It is also strikingly similar to LDS theology. Here is a portion of it:

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But He beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature's Priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended;
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.

●Finally, orthodox Christianity does not minimize personal sin. It is abhorrent to God and leads to eternal damnation. Oh, by the way, Transcendentalism had a huge problem with hell. You can see this with the LDS watered-down version of eternal damnation. Again, we have sentimentalism writ large.

●Certainly there is no “evil in a typical sentimental heart.” However, this is not the point of the article or of PhilosophiaTheos. The point of the article was that one cannot use religious emotions to direct one’s life--particularly regarding critical moral issues. Emotions are a great servant but a horrible master.

●Unfortunately, yes. “Faking It” has an essay on “Happy Clappy” religion that nails this issue. It also has a brilliant chapter by Mark Steyn titled “We’re All Venusians Now.” He is working off of John Grey’s idea that “men are from Mars and women are from Venus.” Steyn’s point is that the major news outlets have become increasingly sentimentalized to the point that all public discourse is framed in emotive terms. If governmental budget cuts are proposed, the media is immediately filming some teary-eyed “victim” who will be thrown out in the proverbial streets if one dollar is cut from the budget. Ultimately, who ever can be the biggest victim wins.

Gecko wrote: Sounds like that Mormon stuff, don't ya think?

●I don’t know about that; but, it does sound like Gecko stuff--meaning that it makes no sense in relationship to the topic.

●No, you have it backwards. Luke is saying that wherever you put your treasure, that is where your “heart” will be. Heart in the New Testament--according to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia stands for “the center of (a person’s) moral, spiritual, intellectual life.” Therefore, if one places their treasure in custom cars, then that is where the the center of their moral, spiritual and intellectual life will gravitate. Custom cars will be at the center of one’s life. In other words, one’s heart follows one’s treasure. Luke is not saying, “to follow your heart.”

●You may want to try reading the plain English of the biblical text.

You wrote: By the way, what you "don't know", that sentimental stuff where you turn up your nose, it comes from The Song of Solomon....the word of God in the Bible.

●Eh...yes...Gecko, I knew your quote was from the Song of Solomon. What was missing was the reason why you put the quote in the thread. Try to keep in mind that most of us on TFD are not conversant with using seeing stones to divine what another person is thinking.

●You don’t seem to be grasping what “Faking It” meant by the term sentimentalism. Let me quote again from my post:

Sentimentality is the over indulgence in emotionalism for its own sake to the detriment of commonsense and rational discourse.

●Okay, here is the deal. The authors of “Faking It” and others on this thread do not have a problem with sentiment in its proper place. For instance, sentiment is properly a part of courtship and marriage. This is why the Song of Solomon is loaded with poetry and wonderful words of romantic sentiment. It would be completely out of place for a poem of romantic love to be a “rational discourse.” (Now read this carefully) Sentiment becomes sentimentalism when it supplants commonsense and rational discourse in public matters. This is what the authors are writing about and objecting to. Please re-read the last sentence several times.

Gecko wrote: The original sin that Thom DESCRIBES is not found in scriptures. It is not found in the original teachings of Christ or the Apostles. The doctrine of original sin has no power, demanding that an infant child is born sinful.

●First of all, I take it that you are admitting that the LDS denies Original Sin and is Pelagian. Thank you for inching toward intellectual honesty ever so gradually.

●Here is The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia again:

The radical corruption of human nature is clearly taught in Scripture and brought into connection with the heart. It is "uncircumcised" (Jeremiah 9:26; Ezekiel 44:7; compare Acts 7:51); and "hardened" (Exodus 4:21); "wicked" (Proverbs 26:23); "perverse" (Proverbs 11:20); "godless" (Job 36:13); "deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9 the King James Version). It defiles the whole man (Matthew 15:19,20); resists, as in the case of Pharaoh, the repeated call of God (Exodus 7:13). There, however, the law of God is written (Romans 2:15); there the work of grace is wrought (Acts 15:9), for the "heart" may be "renewed" by grace (Ezekiel 36:26), because the "heart" is the seat of sin (Genesis 6:5; 8:21).

Gecko wrote: We cannot avoid the experience of returning physically and spiritually to God. (Apparently where Thom does not teach this, you will not find it in Thom's Church.) There is nothing we can do to avoid it. No sin can stop it. We don't even need to be Christian. Christ's death on the cross, His atoning sacrifice provides us the gift of resurrection Because of Jesus Christ. Note that Gift is called a gift because it is unearned.

●From this comment I take it that you are admitting that the LDS has a very sentimentalized view of the doctrine of eternal damnation. Though you don’t directly state this (Mormons rarely directly state what they actually believe), it is obvious that your description here is worlds apart from the biblical Christian view of hell. In fact, what you’ve described comes directly out of early 19th century Romanticism and Transcendentalism.

●The Christian view of these matters is that A) all people will be resurrected at the last day and B) those whose names are not written in the “Book of Life” will be cast with Satan into the “Lake of Fire” to remain forever.

Revelation 20:13-15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

●Here is an additional personal thought, Gecko. You don’t have to take my word for it, read Revelation 20 and other germane parts of the NT. Personally, I think you are betting your eternal life on a system of thought that can easily be shown to be derived from philosophical and theological movements in the early 19th century. It may seem more “feel good” than the hard-edged teaching of the NT, but, the Scripture offers true salvation and not sentimentalism.

●As usual, “no,” Gecko. No, you are again misreading and misquoting what I wrote. Here is a summary of the conversation.

1. You asserted that Luke 12 admonished the reader to “follow his heart.”

2. I corrected your misreading by showing you that the plain reading of the text indicates that Luke is stating that wherever one places their “treasure” their heart (a biblical symbol for the center of one’s “moral, spiritual and intellectual life”) will follow.

3. You retorted that 1st century Jewish-Christians literally thought that Jesus was referring to the organ that pumps our blood.

4. So, according to you, Luke was recording Jesus as saying that people are to go wherever their cardio-organ directs them to go.

●You, of course, are free to believe this goofy idea. The rest of us can read English well enough to know that the word “heart” is primarily used in a metaphorical way in the Bible and was understood as such by Jews. You can do your own research on this from Jewish sources. Knowing you, however, I won’t hold my breathe in hopes that you do so. As they say, “Ignorance is bliss.”

You wrote: join the majority of Christendom on this one. Your viewpoint is the most extreme view, you mess of sin. I doubt you preach such pessimism.

●First of all, allow me to offer a correction. The phrase “mess of sin” is your concept and not Augustine’s. The proper concept is massa damnata et damnabilis: or simply “mass of damnation.” You can read an interesting and informative article from a Catholic perspective that surveys the different positions on this in relationship to Original Sin here:

www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

●Again, I won’t hold my breathe. Ignorance is bliss.

●According to Harris polls a, “...large majorities of the American public believe in God, the survival of the soul after death, miracles, heaven, the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Virgin birth. Majorities of about two-thirds of all adults believe in hell and the devil, but few expect that they will go to hell themselves, Harris said.” Specifically, the “...survey also found that 68 percent of the public believes in the devil, and 69 percent believe in hell.”

The Pew organization found this about hell:

Mormons are the most likely to believe in heaven, but just average in their belief in hell. The biggest believers in hell are evangelical Protestants, African-American Protestants, and Muslims.

www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/06/29/what_lies_beneath/?page=3

●In other words, Mormons believe their own sentimental view of the afterlife and evangelicals tend to believe in their non-sentimental view of heaven and hell. Duh....

●Here is a thought for you, Gecko. When the first Christians started proclaiming a gospel that taught people are held morally accountable to God and will face judgment and possible damnation, very few people “believed” in such notions. In short, this has never been a popular belief. This is why it is termed unsentimental. Does this make sense? LDS theology, obviously is sentimental.

Acts 24:24-25 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 As Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, "That's enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you."

You wrote: For this to fly you have always needed to be the moral police. Without your medieval killing machine all you have is your dwindling opinion.

●This, I presume, it your idea of “rational discourse” and commonsense. Again, you are betting your eternal state on ideas that can easily be validated as originating out of the Enlightenment, Romanticism and Transcendentalism. Christianity has always been a matter of voluntary choice. You can choose to believe whatever you want. However, it is a false conception to think that LDS theology is somehow not a watered down view of the unsentimental orthodox teaching on Original Sin and eternal damnation. One does not have to agree with the Christian view to see these things. In fact, your adamant and negative reaction against the orthodox view is a backhanded validation of the premise of “Faking It” and my post. Thank you.

Gecko tirades the following: You should have placed all this anti-LDS vitriol in your original post and not denied you intention to descending to it was your real intent.

●Eh...probably just posting my assertions and Gecko’s response is enough to demonstrate to the reader what is going on here. But, since I am a patient man, I will respond.

1. Again, the premise of “Faking It” is that 19th century Enlightenment and Romantic philosophy engendered the modern obsession with sentimentalism. “Faking It” makes the case that modern Pelagianism and a denial of Original Sin is at the heart of sentimentalism. I have further asserted that LDS theology grows out of these same philosophic systems and, therefore, also denies Original Sin and is Pelagian. I have calmly and faithfully made my case quoting LDS sources and using rational discourse.

2. The reader can evaluate Gecko’s response for himself.

●Good stuff, Russ.

●My assistant just put Hillside College’s Imprimis on my desk. The lead article is by Mark Steyn titled “Live Free or Die!” It might be the same as the lecture. I’ve only gotten to the second page, but so far it is excellent. It appears that his thesis is that we cannot have a government that meets all of our needs and also enjoy political freedom. Here is a nice quote:

Free people who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life... A nation that demands the government take care of all the grown-up stuff is a nation turning into the world’s wrinkliest adolescent, free only to choose its record collection.

●By temperament, I am iconoclastic and very adverse to “risk-adverse” approaches to life. I obviously am living in the wrong century.

●Let’s go with this for a few minutes.

●So, your claim is that there are those who are “spiritually lazy” who move their lips but “no truth comes for lack of action.” Certainly you must realize that it is a non sequitur (it does not follow) to say that a person does not (or cannot) speak the truth because they are not engaged in “action.” If this was true then those who are bedridden or paralyzed would be unable or incapable of stating a truth. This, of course, is absurd. Think of Stephen Hawking.

●Further, you claim that some “spiritually lazy” people establish “doctrine to suit them and churches to give shallow validity to it.” Okay, let’s compare the orthodox view of the two ideas we have been discussing with the LDS position and see which gives “shallow validity” to its followers and propagators

1. LDS view of Original Sin: Adam and Eve’s sin does not cause a moral problem with any other humans. Therefore, humans are born morally neutral and are capable of repenting of their sins, putting faith in God, being baptized, and striving in good works in order to then receive “Christ’s grace.”

2. Christian view of Original Sin: Adam and Eve’s sin caused enmity between man and God. All humans are born into a state of fallenness and moral corruption and, therefore, are not capable of saving themselves. God’s grace is absolutely necessary for sinners (all of humanity) to come to repentance, faith and to continue in good works. Without God’s grace man is lost.

Hmmm...which of these two views of mankind is “nicer”, more optimistic, happier, and more “shallow?”

1. LDS view of eternal damnation: There is no such thing. Because of Christ’s atoning work, all humans cannot avoid being brought back to God. Even unrepentant murderers and other miscreants will go to the “telestial glory.” They may suffer for a period of time for their own sins before they are resurrected.

2. Christian view of eternal damnation: There is eternal damnation. Unrepentant sinners will be separated from God for eternity.

Hmmm...which of these two views of eternal damnation is “nicer”, more optimistic, happier, and more “shallow?”

●Finally, it is fascinating that you call the biblical-orthodox view of these things a “new heresy.” Wow! I think the term for this is “projection.”

●I’m not sure what you mean by “sympathetic.” The post is about sentimentalism. Additionally, there are lots of Scriptural admonitions against believing that salvation is simply a verbal profession of faith. Remember, it is a work of grace by God which transforms a life.

You wrote: 2. Nothing the LDS professes doctrinally can be characterized as sympathetic. We do not share your traditions. We have not corrupted our Christian gospel. We are restorationist. You cannot escape your corruption. You are wired into it, dependent upon it.

●Again, you are writing about that which is “sympathetic” when the post is about sentimentalism. Agreed, Christians do not share the same traditions as those of the LDS. Again, the germane point is that the LDS has a sentimental view of Original Sin (which it flatly denies) and it is Pelagian.

You wrote: 3. Your God will destroy the great majority of His entire human creation and everything else alive. He is busy doing that now. And your logic is that the more generous to man the doctrine is, the more corrupt it is. And you are the self called moral policeman. Don’t you think people can see through your narcissistic manipulative behavior?

●You seem to lay claim to special knowledge about God’s judgment by knowing who will or will not be sent to heaven/damnation.

●No, my logic is not that “the more generous to man the doctrine is, the more corrupt it is.” My assertion is that modern sentimentalism is a product of the Enlightenment and Romanticism. These philosophies clearly denied Original Sin and are modern incarnations of Pelagianism. The LDS developed concurrently with these movements and demonstrates exactly the same sentimental worldview--namely, a sentimental anthropology.

●First of all, even before I show that you are wrong about what I wrote, let me note something about your use of the word “sentimental.”

●You apparently are trying to reframe my assertion by somehow claiming that the view that God is going to send untold billions of people into eternal damnation and only pluck out a handful of people for heaven is “sentimental.” Come on, Gecko. You must be joking. Try running one of your polls on that assertion. I doubt that very few people would agree that such a God would be viewed as sentimental. Ask a few people at work which of these views is “nicer” and more “sentimental:”

1. God plucks a few people out of humanity for heaven and damns the rest of us (including babies) to eternal hell where we are tormented forever.

2. God brings all people to himself because there is no hell and we are rewarded based upon the good things we have done.

●Secondly, I did not state “...clearly that anyone not professing themselves as Christian .....taking Christ as the Messiah would be swimming in a lake of fire for eternity.” Here is what I wrote:

The Christian view of these matters is that A) all people will be resurrected at the last day and B) those whose names are not written in the “Book of Life” will be cast with Satan into the “Lake of Fire” to remain forever.

Revelation 20:13-15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

You wrote: (In response to my umpteenth reiteration and validation of the assertion that the LDS was heavily influenced by 19th century Transcendentalism which was pervasive in the Northeast in the early 19th century) No. You found a book and you now are sentimental toward it. But, I think you own the patent on the connection between the LDS and Pelagianism. How do you suppose an impoverished young man from the Finger Lakes of rural NY state came upon that religious anthropologic stratagem for successful church birthing?

●Your claim here is obviously wrong for these reasons: A) the book “Faking It” never mentions LDS theology; B) the assertion that the LDS has a similar sentimental anthropology is my claim based upon my knowledge of LDS theology, LDS history, and 19th century philosophy; C) I am not the first person to note that Joseph Smith was highly influenced by the religious and philosophical atmosphere prevalent in the Northeast in the early 19th century--it seems obvious to anyone with some knowledge of these things.

●In regard to Joseph Smith and Pelagianism; once a person understands the term, it becomes clear that LDS theology can be categorized as either pure Pelagianism or an extreme form of semi-Pelagianism. First, Pelagianism is used as a theological/philosophic term to describe those views of man that stress his moral neutrality and his abilities to satisfy God’s moral requirements for salvation. Rarely do these systems propagate that man can fully save himself--God does the final work. However, they believe that since man is morally neutral he can--by his own powers--show himself to be worthy of God’s ultimate salvation. This is Pelagianism as a theologic or philosophic system. Pelagianism was very popular in the Northeast in the early 19th century and developed largely as a reaction against the “dogmatic” claims of orthodox Calvinism. This can be easily researched if you ever chose to do so.

●Yes, we agree that in Christianity salvation is not understood to be simply one’s assent to a set of words. On the other hand, there have always been people who have claimed to be Christians who are not truly regenerated and who are simply trusting in “fire insurance.” In fact, this was true in Christ’s day; otherwise he wouldn’t have said so much about it. He had many who claimed to be his followers who were so only in name. Why would this be any different 2,000 years later? Yet, this does not change the essentials of salvation. It is a supernatural work of grace from first to last.

●I personally think you are wrong about the numbers. I don’t think an “overwhelming majority” of evangelical Protestants and Catholics are “afflicted” with “moral laziness.” Be that as it may, you bring up an interesting issue. The BIG downside of Pelagianism is that it inevitably and inexorably degenerates into extreme moralism. This is one of the points in “Faking It.” In other words, the secular Pelagianism of sentimentalism quickly moves from high sounding talk about “equality” and “fraternity” and “peace” to become the French guillotine, then the Soviet gulag and firing squad, and Political Correctness on American campuses, and then “hate” speech codes, etc. Likewise, the “nicer” God of modern Christianized Pelagianism quickly degenerates into moral rigorousness with the vast majority of people guilty of “moral laziness.” There is an obvious pattern here.

●Ironically, the unsentimental orthodox doctrines of Original Sin, the fallenness of man, and hell actually tend to foster liberty, freedom and generosity amongst people. This is certainly true in the founding principles of America which are rooted in these realistic doctrines (i.e. a system of checks and balances, limited government, the Second Amendment, etc.). Believe me, when you hear that a country wants to build a government upon the “innate goodness” of man, man’s perfectibility, and the possibility of establishing a “just and fair” society on earth--holy smoke--run for the hills. It won’t be long before the “purges” must begin. Blood will run in the streets. Sentimentalists who want to legislate their utopian schemes send shivers up my spine.

You wrote: For the most part, your Orthodox followers are not the root. The majority of your leadership by definition have been bought and an ever growing number of them owe allegiance to nobody, a strengthening sewer. They are the offspring of He who "speaks from the chair of Peter", who is of the world and conquered it, epitomized by the likeness of Pope Leo the Great, Pope Damasus I (both brilliant politicians) and not in exclusion of many, many others.

●Wowie, zowie, Gecko, you sound so much like Maximilien Robespierre getting ready to convene his “Reign of Terror” and begin the butcheries in the streets of Paris, that it is chilling. Off with their heads! “These ‘Romanist’ clerics and Protestant lackeys must be dealt with properly; let their blood return to the sewers from whence they came! The world will be better without their evil influence upon the moral uprightness of our people. If the people seem lax, it is because of their decadent influence!”

Hmmm...see any connections here? Hint: Pelagian sentimentality = rigorous moralism and tyranny.

●Actually, Gecko, in orthodox Christian doctrine, all men are “without hope” and not just the “majority of mankind.” Your statement here implies that some men--for some reason--have hope originating from or in themselves. The whole purpose of Christ’s death upon the cross was to make available God’s grace to all of mankind; meaning that all men are without hope except for God’s grace. LDS doctrine, however, is actually more cruel than Christian doctrine. Though LDS doctrine sounds “nicer,” it really isn’t. Yes, it eliminates hell. However, it grounds salvation upon human effort since it makes “Christ’s grace” available to those who have faith, repent of their sins, are baptized (legitimately), and continue to “strive” in good works. Meanwhile, Christianity makes God’s forgiving and empowering grace available to all who will humble themselves before the Lord Jesus Christ; yes, even those like the “thief on the cross” who first reviled Jesus then simply said, “remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

●See, in the LDS system, what chance would such a morally lax and disobedient sinner like the thief have to attain to the Celestial Glory?

●Your comment about me potentially ordering your death is--unfortunately--typical for you but far below the level of civil discussion.

Okay...drum roll please... no, I did not care for the video. Artistically, it was schmaltzy and syrupy. Even when I was in rebellion against God, I would have found such a video personally objectionable because I would have considered it emotionally manipulative. This is not to say that other people cannot benefit from it. Additionally, I believe it pulls biblical ideas and concepts out of their context to make a patchwork view of God that I do not think is fully accurate. And, yes, it is very sentimental. I might be wrong, but, I do not think it would have a broad appeal to non-believing men. It is very “Venusian.”

(Gecko’s response ) I'm just trying to put borders around your very fuzzy sentimentality. Because I have yet to see an objective measure.

●Again, for the umpteenth time, the post is not about sentimentality in general; rather, it is about a central idea in “Faking It”; namely, that modern sentimentality has grown out of the Enlightenment and Romanticism and has in common with these philosophies a denial of Original Sin and Pelagianism.

●If you will actually read the simple definition of sentimentality that I provided you will see that I state that it is the “over indulgence in emotionalism for its own sake to the detriment of commonsense and rational discourse.” The authors of “Faking It” apply their thesis in detail to many different aspects of society. I have located a pdf of the whole first chapter which summarizes the rest of the book. It will not take long for you to read the summary. You can dind it here:

http://www.comm.umn.edu/~kwilson/8110/Anderson.pdf

You wrote: How is it that the video was "Very Sentimental" when the depictions were quite historically accurate and the entire audio was scripture? Something must be Very Exaggerated about it or very distorted.

●Well, this is how...I quote myself:

Additionally, I believe it pulls biblical ideas and concepts out of their context to make a patchwork view of God that I do not think is fully accurate. And, yes, it is very sentimental

●For instance, as an extreme example; a person could make a video that only focused on the “nice” and “gentle” aspects of a serial killer’s life (I am not suggesting that God is a serial killer). They could easily do this by pulling things out of context and appealing to the emotions of an audience. Consequently, the audience could walk away from the video believing that the serial killer was as “gentle as a lamb.” Of course, they would be wrong. However, the filmmaker could retort, “Hey, everything I put in the film was accurate.” Typically, we call this form of film-making propaganda. Propaganda often appeals to the sentiments and avoids rational discourse.

You wrote: The notion that it is of poor quality in your mind is not meaningful to sentimentality. The notion that it would not convert you is not even meaningful for the purpose of the video. This is not a Paramount Picture. It is UTube and it is one person's celebration about his/her gratitude and faith. It may be a middle school believer learning how to use Dreamweaver, proud of their effort.

●Again--as usual--this is not what I said about the video. I actually thought it was quite effective and well done--particularly for a YouTube video. Here, is what I actually wrote:

Artistically, it was schmaltzy and syrupy. Even when I was in rebellion against God, I would have found such a video personally objectionable because I would have considered it emotionally manipulative.

●My point was that it was a “schmaltzy and syrupy” video and such videos do not now and have never appealed to me. I don’t like emotionally manipulative videos that primarily appeal to the sentiments. Even Christian ones.

You wrote: In identifying yourself as a different kind of Christian than the typical Christian is accurate. But that does not have anything to do with justifying it as sentimental....unless your eclectic interests place you above your followers.

●No, Gecko, my eclectic interests do not place me “above” anyone. However, they might--to the average person--explain why I don’t care for “emotionally manipulative videos that primarily appeal to the sentiments.” In short, my interests and background my just be a “hint” to most people as to why I am not very susceptible to sentimentality--hence, why I did not care for the video.

You wrote: There are all kinds of messages about God's Love. The scriptures might be the most accurate way to tell the rational story accurately... In the Dark Ages, there would be an pagan emperor sending a Christian army out to destroy the creator of this blasphemy and all his friends.

●First, I would like to see you name a “pagan emperor” from the Dark Ages that sent a “Christian army out to destroy the creator of this blasphemy.”

●While there are all kinds of messages about God’s love in the Scripture, as you know, there are also many messages about God’s wrath (Romans 1, 2 Thess 1). If all one did was make videos about God’s wrath and use authentic Scripture to validate the point, one would--obviously--be creating a distorted view of God. What we must do is give (as Paul stated in Acts 20) the whole counsel of God. Otherwise, even though we may be using a passage or concept of Scripture that is accurate, the picture is a distortion. I believe this makes sense to most people.

●First of all, Ron, I do want to make it clear that I believe greed is wrong. Specifically, the love of money cannot be satisfied and leads to all kinds of evil. However, I think both of your authors are mistaken in that they identify covetousness with greed or the insatiable desire for more. Covetousness is the specific sin of desiring the things my neighbor owns. Therefore, while greediness may be the classic American or free market sin, covetousness is the classic socialist or statist (big government) sin. Here is Aquinas on the subject:

Thirdly, covetousness in a man of wealth renders his riches useless both to himself and to others, because he desires only to hold on to them: "Riches are not comely for a covetous man and a niggard." The fourth reason is that it destroys the equality of justice: "Neither shalt thou take bribes, which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just." And again: "He that loveth gold shall not be justified."[12] The fifth reason is that it destroys the love of God and neighbor, for says St. Augustine: "The more one loves, the less one covets," and also the more one covets, the less one loves. "Nor despise thy dear brother for the sake of gold."[13] And just as "No man can serve two masters," so neither can he serve "God and mammon."[14]

...And note, furthermore, that covetousness is a mortal sin when one covets one's neighbor's goods without reason; and even if there be a reason, it is a venial sin.

●Notice that both Aquinas and Augustine see covetousness as a social sin that “destroys the equality of justice.” On the other hand, greediness generally is a private sin that destroys or works against temperance. So to answer Ryken, yes there are many countries that demonstrate a higher level of covetousness. The Soviet Union is a classic example and modern democratic socialist countries are very covetous. Of course, American is moving rapidly toward a legislated and institutionalized covetousness.

Abinadi uses the term endless damnation similarly, to refer to the resurrected state of all the rebellious, those who come forth in the resurrection of the unjust, those who refused to repent when the gospel was offered to them but who chose to go their own carnal ways, receiving eventually an inheritance in the telestial kingdom. Though they attain a kingdom of glory, yet to all eternity they are damned, cannot go where God and Christ are (D. & C. 76:112), and are never completely free from the lingering remorse that always follows the loss of opportunity.

●Common Gecko, we all know that the LDS redefines all the classic Christian terms. So, for instance, the average Mormon can say “I believe in Jesus” but mean something radically different from what Christians mean. In other words, not receiving “exaltation in the highest heaven” and having “limitations imposed upon them so that they...”cannot have an increase” is way, way different than what the bible and Christians mean my eternal damnation in hell.

●Additionally, here is another blatant example of redefinition of terms:

Eternal punishment is, thus, the kind of punishment imposed by God who is Eternal, and those subject to it may suffer therefrom for either a short or a long period. After their buffetings and trials cause them to repent, they are freed from this type of eternal damnation.

●In other words, the damnation won’t be eternal--it will be limited--but, we call it “eternal” because God imposes this short-lived psychological punishment and he is eternal. That would be like me saying, “My granddaughters are on the Fresno State national championship baseball team because we’ve walked across the Fresno State baseball diamond just like all the other FSU players.”

●And, of course, the following is just the musings of Joseph Smith under the influence of 19th century sentimental Transcendentalism, redefining the Christian terms for everlasting punishment as short-term suffering:

Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory. Behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore Eternal punishment is God's punishment. Endless punishment is God's punishment." (D. & C. 19:4-12.)

●I prefer St. Paul and one of the very earliest writings of the NT:

2 Thess 1: 6-9 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

●The terms “everlasting destruction” are: Aionios meaning “without end, never to cease, everlasting;” and Olethros meaning “ruin, destroy, death.”

●Oh, by the way, if “everlasting (or eternal) punishment” is only temporary because it is termed as such simply because God is eternal, then likewise, eternal salvation is temporary.

●You obviously do not know what a non sequitur is because all of my comments do follow. My point is that the terms “eternal damnation” are largely redefined in LDS theology to mean something quite different than they mean in Christian theology. I demonstrated this through the direct quotes you provided which were--specifically and categorically--actual explanations of the LDS redefinitions.
●It is your problem, therefore, to prove either: A) the LDS doesn’t redefine “eternal damnation” into oblivion; or B) that the Christian definition of eternal damnation actually means something like a time-limited psychological suffering followed by a placement in the “terrestrial glory.”

Thanks for affirming my point. The Bible does describe Hell as an abiding place where people stay forever.

Again, 69% of Americans believe in hell. Whatever “Protestant” theologians you are referring to is unknown. Generally speaking when Americans think of hell they think of hell they are thinking of the traditional Christian concept—a place of everlasting separation and punishment. When they think of heaven they think of a place of joy, rewards and communion with God. It is as simple as that.

The fact that God is spirit and not corporeal does not have anything to do with the spatiality of hell other than He is the Creator. God created the a whole universe that is spatial.

You wrote: The Bible descriptions of damnation are not at odds with the LDS. Biblical explanations of damnation clearly speak of hades (Greek) being a temporary abode, not necessarily a permanent one for all who abide it. The LDS know of a deeper doctrine where the signed lease with the particularly suitable tenant is forever and without remedy.

No, of course the LDS view of eternal damnation is at odds with the Bible. Hades is the temporary holding place of the unrighteous dead. According to Revelation 20, Hades itself will be thrown into the “Lake of Fire” which is the place of eternal damnation. You are mixing up concepts.

Your “deeper doctrine” violates the Law of Non-contradiction. Everlasting punishment cannot at the same time and in the same way (chronologically) be temporary. Joseph Smith didn’t seem to understand that “temporary” and “everlasting” are two words that are the polar opposite of each other.

You wrote: The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that Heaven and Hell are within the same realm (think "place"), which is in the presence of God (of all things). If they are not true Christians, let's hear it Thom…The Orthodox Church holds that both Heaven and Hell are a condition of relationship with God that is either theosis or perdition, both are as in the presence of God, where the punishment is eternal.

There is nothing that you have presented here as an Eastern Orthodox view that either A) violates Scripture or B) affirms the LDS notions of eternal punishment.

Notice the Eastern Orthodox view of God’s presence. What they actually mean is that God is Omnipresent. What they don’t mean is that people in perdition are in any way enjoying theosis or the Beatific Vision. This means that those in perdition are not enjoying God’s presence. Notice that perdition is eternal (as you stated).

You wrote: A "significant minority" of Protestants believe in the doctrine of conditional immortality Some Protestants believe that after serving their sentence in Gehenna, all souls are reconciled to God and admitted to heaven without "hellish" suffering…Heck, Catholics believe they can pray a person to receive lesser eternal punishment. Catholic Priest regularly set themselves up as being party with God, where when paid, they will pray for the dead. All this to the end of easing their torment.....especially pertinent to unbaptized children. "Thank you father."

A “minority” of Protestants believe that gay marriage is okay. So what, they are wrong. The point of my post is that sentimentalism is derived from the Enlightenment and Romanticism and contradicts two key traditional orthodox Christian teachings: Original Sin and that man has fallen into sin. Additionally, I’ve noted that religious sentimentalism (particularly arising out of Transcendentalism in the US) rejects the traditional Christian view of eternal damnation. It just so happens that LDS theology (which developed concurrently with Transcendentalism in the Northeast) rejects the traditional orthodox view of all of these things. You have shown this to be true.

Catholics pray for those in Purgatory. Unbaptized children are believed to be in Limbo which is not hell.

You wrote: The only way your "sentimentalism" takes wing is where you create extreme dogmatic myth then suggest everyone, everywhere have been contaminated and are unable to abide it. This is the act of a wizard demanding dutiful followers requesting they not think for themselves.

I can always tell when you have nothing intelligent to say, you start up your character assassination. I guess it won’t do any good to repeat my often stated claim that your vicious habit of denigrating others does nothing for your cause either intellectually or for your Mormon religion.

Again, you are attempting to redefine what my position is by asserting that my position is somehow the sentimental position. Yet you turn right around and state that my position is an “extreme dogmatic myth.” One of the central purposes of the Enlightenment, Romanticism and Transcendentalism was to reject orthodox “dogmatism” in favor of a more sentimental view of man, God and eternal punishment. How can I be an extreme dogmatic and a sentimentalist at the same time? You are utterly confused.

I am not demanding that anyone believe anything I am writing. However, I think I am right and I also think I can ably defend my position. Your problem is that you are trying to contradict the obvious and, therefore, you get yourself tied up in intellectual knots. You end up contradicting yourself and constantly violating the Law of Non-contradiction (i.e. everlasting punishment is not everlasting).

Yes, as you so aptly put it, we certainly do “find it somewhat insulting to create a sense of obligation on the sheep to purchase” our pastoral services. Agreed, that would be insulting, so I am glad you stated this so clearly. As both John and I have stated, these things should be an act of free charity on the part of people who give a gratuity to a ministry. It is also a blessing to have you in agreement on this matter.

Where you are a little “off the beam” is with your ideas regarding Biblical persons who received “any coin of the realm” (as you put it). As we can see in the following scripture, Jesus was supported financially by certain women who had been ministered to by him. Check it out, I am sure a indisputable and direct reference from Holy Scripture will help you “tweak” your thinking a little.

Luke 8:1-3 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

●Yes, I think I probably agree with Ryken in many ways. Where I believe I do disagree is with the idea of covetousness (in the Ten Commandments) as the “Big Sin” of America. Obviously, Ryken was writing about the 10th commandment which specifically condemns coveting your neighbor’s things. In my view, this is the Big Sin of all socialist and statist countries. Socialist and Marxist ideologues posit that it is per se wrong for “capitalist” to make “obscene” profits from their labors because others are “left behind” economically and, therefore, their wealth should be “spread around” (redistributed—meaning taken by the force of the government and given to others). This is pure and unadulterated covetousness of my neighbor’s wealth incarnated as a political system. This is not to deny that greed is rampant in America.

●Yes, one can probably understand coveting as a general and inordinate desire for things, and therefore equate it with greed. And, yes, greed can have social consequences. However, in view here is the 10th commandment, which has to do with the desire for my neighbor’s things. This, specifically, is a sin of injustice. Injustice is per se a social sin. Greed or inordinate acquisitiveness is not per se a sin of injustice. One can act in a perfectly lawful way and live out a life of greed—making “things” the god of one’s life. This can be done without seeking after, attempting to, or acquiring my neighbor’s goods. On the other hand, socialism cannot be incarnated as a political system without violating the 10th commandment.

●My problem is that I believe too often well-meaning Christian writers are quick to spot the foibles, faults and sins of middle-class Americans (and American Christians) and not notice the deadly and devastating social sins rampant in large parts of the world which are often carried like viruses by academics and social elites into unsuspecting host populations. In my view, they tend to cloak their ideology in high-toned rhetoric, but at its heart these ideologies violate divine law.

Again, you are ....asserting that my position is somehow the sentimental position.

You were rational and self-aware when you stated in your topic that sentimentality is EVERYWHERE, INFECTING EVERYTHING? You... state that my position is an “extreme dogmatic myth.” That is correct; if self-aware, you should through deductive reasoning accept this as true. One of the central purposes of the Enlightenment, Romanticism and Transcendentalism was to reject orthodox “dogmatism” in favor of a more sentimental view of man, God and eternal punishment. How can I be an extreme dogmatic and a sentimentalist at the same time? The orthodox dogma you wield as a hammer, topic after topic after topic is not source Christian dogma, where you fail to use the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. You espouse only distantly post-apostolic Aquinas dogma which reflects and is sourced in times of "over indulgence in emotionalism for its own sake to the detriment of commonsense and rational discourse." The Protestant Reformation with Luther its point man, condemned the many forms of over-indulgences of that time. Aquinas lived in a time of overindulgence. Aquinas lived in a time where his dialogue was rational but the exercise of his dogma in the world was not one of rational discourse. It had already been exercised through murder and destruction for many centuries (should we admit to the most brutal torture unto death, as well?), which Aquinas and you have justified to maintain the power that affords overindulgence. Thomisticguy, in spite of his time - Aquinas lived a personal life of austerity and poverty. By your own definition of others, You live a life of unrepentant overindulgence in both material and means.

●No, Gecko, you are wrong on a number of counts. Let me list them:

1. First, I quoted the biblical passage to show that your suggestion to John that priests be prohibited from receiving any charitable gifts based upon conjecture about John the Baptist must be wrong because Jesus clearly received charitable monetary gifts to support his ministry (which you now admit). Therefore, the case is proved and your suggestion to John has no scriptural support and you are wrong on the specific point of discussion.

2. Second, your interpretation of the Luke passage to mean that the women mentioned were of “humble means” and only supported Jesus at “infrequent times” is purely conjecture and works against the passage. First of all Luke mentions “Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household.” As you must know, the “manager of Herod’s household” would have been a person of wealth and prominence. Herod was lavishly wealthy and his top steward must have been well paid. Additionally, Luke must have mentioned the other women by name because they were well-known in the early Christian community. It would certainly make sense that they were women of some means. The least likely way of understanding this passage is to view the women as poor. There is absolutely no mention of “infrequent” support.

3. Your assertion that I offered the Luke passage as a justification for lavish and pleasure-oriented living is clearly wrong. Again, it was to counter your incorrect notion that the Bible indicates that John the Baptist never received charitable gifts (which it doesn’t) and, therefore, Hawaiian priests should be barred from receiving such gifts. You, as usual, seek to move the discussion to character assassination because you cannot mount a credible argument. This is sad and discredits your LDS beliefs. The Mormons I know would not stoop to such tactics.

●LOL…this is just plain funny to me. Anyone who knows even a little bit about the Enlightenment, Romanticism and Transcendentalism knows that the proponents of these philosophies (Voltaire for instance) self-consciously attacked traditional Christian “dogma” including Original Sin and eternal damnation as “dogmatic”, cruel, and harsh. To have you call my position “deeply sentimental” while it is “yet dogmatic thinking” is just so much belly laughing fun. Please repeat after me: “Self-contradictory” or “Oxymoron.”

●Gecko, get a grip. LDS theology comes root and branch out of the Transcendental reaction against dogmatic and unsentimental Christian orthodoxy. I have no problem embracing the term “dogmatic”—I like it. Face it, in comparison with hardcore Christian doctrine, LDS theology is sentimental. Embrace it and defend it because you think it is right. But don’t try to claim my position. I’m the so-called “mean-spirited” hardcore dogmatist. You are the “soft and gentle” sentimentalist.

You make me laugh.

●Holy smoke, Gecko, gosh… I never even realized that when the Bible says that Joanna was the “wife of Chuza” that …eh… she was the…eh … “wife of Chuza.” What a truly amazing revelation. Do you mean to say that when the Bible says that Chuza was Herod’s steward that this means that Joanna wasn’t Herod’s steward? Are you saying that Chuza was Herod’s steward just like the Bible says? Why, I am blown away… I had no idea. Well, bless my soul.

●LOL, you are just a barrel of monkey laughs today, Gecko!

You wrote: (continuing the entertainment) By the law supported by Herod, a wife could be put out for cooking a tasteless meal. She was not wealthy. The man she prepared tasteful meals for might have been comparatively.

●Okay, the chuckles continue. Based upon the “vast” knowledge that you have of ancient history and upon your clairvoyant insights into the Chuza/Joanna household, we are to believe that Joanna was “not wealthy.” Though the Heordians were know for their extreme wealth and though Chuza managed Herod’s personal household, yet, Joanna was a poor person who barely could make ends meet. In fact, even if Chuza shared Herod’s luxurious lifestyle and was probably amply rewarded for managing Herod’s affairs well, Chuza likely kept poor Joanna slaving away in the kitchen with the slaves and if a bad meal was ever served he kicked her into the streets. In the meantime, Chuza—not wanting to let people know of his social standing—kept Joanna in rags. As you know, most wealthy husbands take no pride in being able to provide well for their wives and families. They would rather keep them in rags and living from hand to mouth as they enjoy the “fat of the land.” LOL

●Sorry to bring our comedy show to a close, Gecko; but, here is something you should know. Whatever Joanna’s (and the other women mentioned in the Luke passage) financial status whether it was high (obvious to most rational people) or low (great for laughs), it doesn’t make any difference in regard to the point at hand. The fact that they participated in charitable giving to Jesus puts a stake in the heart of your assertions. Even if they gave only one penny or a chicken, their gift and the fact that Jesus excepted it, destroys your argument.

●Hopefully you can find another creative way to keep the laughter flowing.

●I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this question. Ahab would not have had to be a socialist to do what socialists do. What Ahab (and other monarchs and totalitarians) did that he has in common with socialists is to use the power of the government to take land, private property and money from people and give it to other people. Additionally, those who benefit from this kind of state-supported violation of the 10th Commandment are usually a bureaucratic class of people (e.g. the “court” or “Beltway” or Politburo). Monarchs posit their right to do such things through the ideology of the “divine right of kings” or some such notion. On the other hand, socialists and Marxists give themselves the right to violate the 10th Commandment through and ideology of “helping” the downtrodden. They stomp their feet and say its “not fair” for some people to have “too much” money. They then use the power of the state to “spread the wealth.”

●One of the unforeseen consequences of socialist ideology is that people living under its spell tend to become amazingly uncharitable—frankly they demonstrate the vice of miserliness. This is another little thing that is often missed by well-intentioned Christian critics of American “greed.”

●Just for giggles let’s see how many mistakes we can find in your last comments.

1. First, my basic premise is not in regard to the poverty or wealth of the women listed in Luke 8. My premise is that Luke clearly states that the women were making charitable gifts for the support of Jesus. Whatever the amount of the gifts, the fact that they were given and that they supported Jesus in his ministry puts a “stake in the heart” of your unsupportable idea that the Bible teaches that John the Baptist didn’t receive charity and, therefore, Catholic Priests in Hawaii should be banned from receiving charitable gifts. Your assertions are wrong.

2. For some strange reason you think (perhaps by clairvoyant powers) that Cuza would not have shared his financial resources with his wife Joanna. I’m sure you would never do such a thing and you know lots of husbands that refuse to share their income with their wives.

3. Again, perhaps by clairvoyant powers, you know that Cusa was not a Christian.

4. Herod’s actions toward Jesus seem to vacillate from fear to interest. The gospels indicate that Herod had a great interest in Jesus and wanted to question him and, perhaps, do a miracle in front of him. The only indication that Herod wanted to “kill” Jesus came from a statement by Pharisees (Luke 13:31). We do know that when Jesus was brought to Herod this is what happened.:

Luke 23:8-9 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. 9 He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer.

The point is that we have a direct statement by Scripture that says the wife of Cuza supported Jesus from her own “substance.” By the way, she may have had her own family wealth that she brought to her marriage. On the other hand, we have your “interesting” clairvoyant knowledge of the Cuza household that directly denies the written NT record. Hmmm… which shall we believe?

Let’s look at the passage again using a direct modern translation:

Luke 8:1-3 1 Soon afterwards, He began going around from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him, 2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means.

●First, the Greek word translated here as “private means” is Huparchonta and has the definition of “possessions, goods, wealth, property.” It is translated in the KJV (used by the LDS) 14 times and done so as “goods,” 7 times; “substance,” 1 time; “that (one) has,” 4 times; and “things which (one) possesses,” 2 times. Therefore, it this word indicates that the women in Luke 8 were giving things they owned to Jesus for his support. We call this charitable giving. Give it up Gecko.

You wrote: To make matters less believable, Christ would take significant and regular sums of money from this woman knowing the danger of her actions? Your presumptive inventions of what the Savior needs and the dangers he willing places his followers in, demands a book be written on the subject. Got that started yet?

●Again, you keep me in stitches. Now you want us to ignore and deny the direct statements of Scripture because you assert that Jesus would not want his disciples to be in any danger. Certainly you jest. Are you really going to assert this cockamamie concept? Certainly the LDS doesn’t believe such a wrongheaded notion. Okay, let’s go with this. Now explain to me all the passages in the NT where either Jesus or the Apostles tell Christians that they must be willing to suffer for the Lord.

You wrote: Your explanation is intended to explain how ample funding came to Jesus from a wealthy woman. The explanation is fallacious if there is no objective evidence that she was wealthy and that she did not, by any accounts, substantially fund the missions of “the church”. Common married women were not wealthy during the time of Christ and this woman did not individually and substantially provide “from her substance” apart from the other women who were similarly noted by name. She was owned by her husband who served the household of Herod. There is no reason to believe that the account occurred where it is not found in the Bible or any other ancient documents.

●I don’t have to reply to any of these things because I am not asserting them. I am simply saying that Luke 8:1-3 clearly states that women supported Jesus out of their own resources. This puts a “stake in the heart” of your wrongheaded notion that the Bible states that John the Baptist (setting a biblical precedent) didn’t receive charitable giving and, therefore, Catholic Priests in Hawaii should be banned from receiving charitable gifts. You are clearly wrong.

●Oh, my goodness, you are a virtual riot and amazingly predictable. Now that I have shown repeatedly that you are wrong in asserting (to John) that John the Baptist didn’t receive charitable giving and, therefore, Catholic priests in Hawaii should be banned from receiving such charity, you return to your snide innuendos about my personal habits and character. I’ve waded patiently through every cockamamie concept and inane notion that you can dredge up (usually laced with ad hominem statements). So, now you simply return to unvarnished character assassination.

●Okay, I’ll play along with the goofy nonsense for giggles. Please demonstrate your personal knowledge of my “lavish lifestyle.”

You wrote: Your "over indulgence in emotionalism for its own sake to the detriment of commonsense and rational discourse" qualifies for the most significant sentimentalism. Witness the total lack of support or comment from your own Covs, even your youthful Covs.

●Okay, prove that my dogmatic belief in Original Sin, eternal damnation, and anti-Pelagianism qualifies as sentimentalism. Show me how sentimentalism, which religiously denies Original Sin, is opposed to eternal damnation and embraces Pelagianism is compatible with my dogmatic beliefs. By the way, here is a hint, commonsense dictates that if sentimentalism embraces a denial of Original Sin, is opposed to eternal damnation and is Pelagian, that those people who believe in Original Sin, like the doctrine of eternal damnation and oppose Pelagianism are likely not very sentimental. Heck, but that is just commonsense.

You wrote: Nobody here questioned the widespread charity of those who loved Christ, just the lavish giving you demand by contract (not wish for). But, Thom - I know of Christ; you are no more Christ than Joanna was wealthy.

●It is so entertaining to develop lists of all of your errors. Here is another fun opportunity for me.

1. Correct, no one “here questioned the widespread charity of those who loved Christ”… eh … except …eh … Gecko! You asserted that John the Baptist did not receive charitable gifts and, therefore, Catholic priests in Hawaii should be banned from receiving charitable gifts. I then showed you that Jesus received charitable gifts from women followers as recorded in Luke 8. You’ve been trying to obfuscate and back-pedaling ever since. As you have probably noticed, I have been focused like a laser beam on this because you are so obviously adept at obfuscation. However, because I am so familiar with Gecko-speak, I stay focused.

2. As usual, you have absolutely no idea how I live. So your claim that I “demand by contract” “lavish giving” is simply an amateurish attempt at character assassination. However, even if I lived like King Tut, it wouldn’t change the fact that you are dead wrong on the actual issue for discussion; namely, Jesus received charitable gifts and, therefore, Catholic priests in Hawaii should not be banned from receiving the same. Your tactics are so transparent that they keep me chuckling.

3. As usual, your claim about the fact that I am “no more Christ than Joanna was wealthy” is completely off the point. It is just another smoke-screen of desperate back-pedaling. But, as usual it is heavily laced with implied denigration of my character. Of course, I was not claiming to be Christ whatsoever. The point again for the umpteenth time is that Christ received charitable gifts and, therefore, Catholic priests in Hawaii should not be banned from receiving the same.

●Has anyone ever mentioned to you that you have a very vicious habit (this means sinful habit) of consistently and often taking cheap-shots at others simply because you disagree with their opinion or you sense that they are right about something? Do you ever think about this in relationship to your claimed moral beliefs? Do you ever sense God’s conviction for your blatant unjust treatment of others?

In 1996, the General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans whether they agreed that, “The government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” Those who “disagreed strongly” with this statement gave an amazing twelve times more money to charity per year, on average, than those who “agreed strongly.” People disagreeing strongly also gave nine times more to secular causes than those agreeing strongly, and even gave more to traditionally progressive causes, such as the environment and the arts. (“Barack as Scrooge?”, Charitable priorities, By Arthur C. Brooks, April 1, 2008)

No other country comes close," said Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. Brooks studies charitable giving and has a new book, "Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide."

"The fact is that Americans give more than the citizens of any other country. … They also volunteer more," Brooks said. "Americans per capita individually give about three and a half times more money per year, than the French per capita. … Seven times more than the Germans and 14 times more than the Italians."

"Now, you might notice that these other countries have different average incomes or different tax systems," he said. "But even when you take that into account, Americans give 10 times more than the Italians. The fact is, that Americans give on a different scale than anybody else in the world." “
Are Americans Cheap? Or Charitable?, “ Fighting the 'Stingy' Stereotype, By JOHN STOSSEL and GENA BINKLEY, Aug. 21, 2007

Over time, Americans' charitable donations have skyrocketed. Last year's estimated $306.39 billion in donations is up about 88% from a decade earlier, when giving totaled around $163 billion. Giving by individuals accounted for about 75% of the 2007 donation total. Foundation grants made up 12.6% of the total, contributing a record $38.52 billion. Rounding out the types of donors, bequests and corporate donations both rose, though corporate giving fell slightly when adjusted for inflation. “Americans' Charitable Giving Hits a Record,” WSJ, Mike Spector, JUNE 23, 2008

Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.
“A Nation of Givers,” By Arthur C. Brooks, From the March/April 2008 Issue, Filed under: Culture, Public Square

In May of 2008, 
Gallup conducted a poll that measured the level of giving by political ideology. Gallup found that the more conservative a person is, the more she or he contributes to charity and that the more liberal a person is, the less she or he contributes to charity… the polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.

These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.

While Gallup did not investigate why the differences exist, it is easily explainable by principles of the political ideologies surveyed. Conservatives believe in small government, confined narrowly to the functions authorized by the founding fathers in the Constitution and other documents. Conservatives recognize that government is generally incompetent, corrupt, and inefficient. With this in mind, it makes more sense for caring people to donate their hard-earned funds to organizations that are best equipped to provide the help and relief intended. Almost always, these are private organizations.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to view the government as the source of solutions and remedies – the government has the responsibility, insight, ability, and resources to fix society’s problems. Additionally, the government has the ability to force or coerce people into giving. By delving a bit deeper into liberal thinking, we find that liberals are also motivated by controlling help and assistance to achieve their political aims. If a liberally inclined government can set up a social program to meet real or imagined needs, the liberals are able to better control the social agenda and reap the political benefits of creating a dependent class of people. This all leads liberals to prefer imposing taxation on everyone, forcing all to support their agenda, rather than willingly giving of their own personal funds.
“Conservatives are More Charitable” Derek Haynes, The Conservative Thinker
http://conservative-thinker.com/blog/2009/04/21/conservatives-are-more-charitable/

(Your response) That's easy. Please publish your 2007-8 Tax returns below. Then your 1980 tax return: PreChristian to Mega Christian comparison will do it. From that we can all see the true conversion of Jan.

●With “tongue in cheek” I sometimes claim that you have difficulty reading English. However, I really am beginning to believe you struggle with this basic skill.

●So, you’ve proved you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about my personal lifestyle. That settles another issue. You are wrong again and you additionally proved that you are merely slandering me.

You wrote: Thom obviously endorses American Christian greed because it is somehow inexplicably washed in the blood of Christ.

●No, I didn’t endorse American Christian greed. You are wrong again. All you are doing is proving my point; namely, that when you cannot mount a cogent argument you slide into your vicious habit of character assassination.

You wrote: Then there is that other greed, black and evil. Then there is the socialist who must be miserly and can't be Christian. Yet we have the former Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair - close confidant to the Bushes - who belonged to the Christian Socialist Movement.

●I have not made the assertion that a Christian cannot be a socialist. Therefore, this must be your claim.

You wrote: You see, the quote is abjectly unsupportable because it has been so vaguely stated as to be meaningless. What particular socialist movement are you referring to? Blair or Castro? As far as being charitable, why do you abdicate charity now to be a function of government and not Thom's Church? And fourth, if socialists are particularly miserly, is that compared to squirrels or what?

●See my comment to Ron. You will see that so-called greedy conservative Christian Americans are the most charitable people in the world with both their money and their time. Guess who are the least charitable.

You wrote: Now that I have entered into the discussion on socialism, does that somehow indicate I and my Church are full-blooded socialists? Perhaps you can depict our missionary work as an attempt to overthrow your form of Capitalistic form of Christianity. Or our excessive devotion to family, self sufficiency, charitable giving and faith in Jesus Christ as concealing a great conspiracy.

●Absolutely not. Mormons are some of the most charitable and conservative religious people in the world—for which they should be highly commended.

You wrote: You were pointing to Joanna as justifying opulence in your own ministry. Now YOU no longer do that ....having abandoned the justification, not repenting of it.s

●This is a bold-faced lie. Additionally, this is a lie that you cannot prove and lie that I believe you know is a lie. On top of this, your comments about my actions towards women reach—for you—an all time low. I personally find them revolting. I agree with John and pray that God will grant you the grace to change. I also pray that your actions not reflect negatively upon the LDS. While I disagree with their theology, I believe that Mormons and the LDS demonstrate high moral character that should not be discredited by your sad statements

Gecko wrote: Arthur C. Brooks? President of a Right wing Conservative, predominantly Republican Think Tank…Did it occur to you, Ron was expecting an impartial, objective, statistically verifiable source?

●Arthur C. Brooks was the Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and Whitman School of Management until January, 2009. Brooks did his research on charity while teaching at Syracuse, which has been widely published in Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), which came out in 2006. Brooks earned his PhD in Public Policy Analysis from the Rand Graduate School in 1998, and also holds an MA and BA in economics. You can find his academic vita on the Syracuse University website here: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/Pages/Research.htm

●Prof. Brooks’ research is completely verifiable which, if you had bothered to notice, George Gallup has affirmed in his research (quoted above). I also quoted the Wall Street Journal which has published the same results from other sources.

●All you are doing is proving once again that you immediately attack the man rather than make a cogent argument.

You wrote: …The rational mind would suppose wealthy people give more where the laws allow them to take a tax deduction seriously reducing their actual tax burden. That doesn't make their motives predominantly charitable.

●This to is wrong. The reality is that wealthy people give less per capita than do less working poor. Additionally, studies show that people don’t primarily give to charities or volunteer their time to get a tax deduction.

Charitable giving is an American tradition. Surveys consistently find that between 65 and 85 percent of U.S. families make charitable donations each year, and we give away more than twice as much per capita as the citizens of even the most generous European nations. According to the Center on Philanthropy Panel Study, the average American family that gave to charity in 2002 donated $1,917. And contrary to what some might assume, this giving does not all—or even mostly—support houses of worship. The Giving U.S.A. Foundation reports that only about a third of individual gifts go toward religious causes; the rest are earmarked for secular concerns like education and health.

Wrong. In fact, Americans at the bottom of the income-distribution pyramid are the country's biggest givers per capita. (View average household donations and the percentage of income donated to charity.) The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that households with incomes below $20,000 gave a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than did any other income group: 4.6 percent, on average. As income increased, the percentage given away declined: Households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 donated 2.5 percent or less. Only at high income levels did the percentage begin to rise again: For households with incomes over $100,000, the number was 3.1 percent.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/02/19/Poor-Give-More-to-Charity

But notice this from the same article…

Do all the poor give generously, or do some give more than others? The answer is that there is a fundamental difference between the working and nonworking poor. The working poor—families with the same income level as welfare recipients but who receive all their money from employment—are the big givers. The Center on Philanthropy survey data reveal this vividly. For example, consider two families: One earns its income from wages; the other relies on government support. Both families are near the bottom of the bottom in income, bringing in less than $14,000 in 2001. On average, the working family tends to donate more than three times as much to charity each year as the welfare family does.

●This piece of research underlines my assertion that the more a person falls under the spell of socialist ideology, the less likely they are to be personally charitable.

●I would further assert that statist attempts to solve social problems are not only ineffective, wasteful and full of corruption; they actually are self-defeating in that they tend to acerbate the problems. Therefore, redistribution is: A) a violation of the 1oth Commandment: B) makes problems worse; and C) engenders less charity and more miserliness in the individual. The one thing that governmental redistribution does effectively is to consolidate its control over the lives of people and, therefore, reduce the freedoms and liberty of a society.

You wrote: Why did you feel the need to sell the preposterous thought that Joanna was wealthy....so that Catholic Priests could accepts a few bucks for a prayer? No, you were trying to float that to substantiate your own wealthy financial interests.

●I don’t “feel” any need to sell the “thought that Joanna was wealthy. To “feel” the need to assert something like that would be highly sentimental. My assertion is that Jesus received charitable gifts from the women mentioned in Luke 8 and, therefore, Catholic priests in Hawaii should not be banned from receiving charitable gifts on any biblical grounds. There are no per se biblical grounds for this. You asserted there was. You are wrong. However, it is logical that Joanna was a woman of means because her husband was certainly a man of means.

●I didn’t “float” any ideas for my “own wealthy financial interests.” I asserted what I did because it is true and because you are wrong. Your snide remarks here are another example of your vicious habit of attacking the person when you cannot prove your case. You apparently cannot restrain yourself.

I presume when you refer to my “drama” you are referring to how I calmly draw attention to your continued use of ad hominem statements about the character and attributes of those you disagree with. You don’t seem to be able to stop doing this.

In regard to the notion that Prof. Brooks’ research is biased, I’ve already quoted from other sources including Gallup. Additionally, just claiming that a person’s research must be biased is not a proof. It is simply an unsubstantiated claim. It has no validity whatsoever. In short, your assertion has no validity unless you can prove that his research and the research of other’s on this subject is wrong.

●What are you talking about? We don’t have any “soundproof” rooms in our Sunday school area. On Sundays and Wednesday nights and whenever we have Christian education, our classrooms and nursery are a cacophony of wild fun, learning and wonderful noise. We have the biggest, happiest and most devoted heart for kids in our area. Kids-R-Us, baby!

●Hey, thanks for supplying the critique of “Faking It.” At least it was on topic. However, you forgot to mention the key ideas from the book that are germane to the post: Original Sin and Pelagianism.

You wrote: You must not be a regular. "Crawl Inn" nursery, ring a bell? You haven't seen the sign? Your sound proofed baby room...Erin can tell you about it. She and others takes care of the kids.

●Well, well, well...there you go Gecko, demonstrating how little you know about our church. The “Crawl Inn” was our nursery about 3 years ago and the “Busy Baby Room” was a room connected to the old sanctuary where nursing mothers could care for their own children in privacy while watching the service through large one-way glass windows . The audio was provided through a nice sound-system. Absolutely no mothers deposited and abandoned their babies in the Busy Baby Room. It was specifically for mothers. Of course, since you have--I presume--never nursed a baby, you wouldn’t know how much the mother’s of infants appreciated this feature. We specifically built it by their request.

●Where we go down another rabbit trail.

A. I never said the Social Affairs Unit is a Christian think tank.

B. I consider “Faking It” one of the most important Christian books of the last two decades because it is written from an orthodox Christian perspective as a critique of the sentimentalization of modern society. This is obvious from the opening chapter which identifies its thesis as grounded in Original Sin and Pelagianism. Additionally, two of the chapters are specifically about Christianity. Finally, Dr. Digby Anderson and Dr. Peter Mullen are both clergymen in the Church of England as well as brilliant social thinkers.

C. And, of course, you are free to have your own opinion about “Faking It.”

●And, again, the “Busy Baby Room” was in our old sanctuary. It is now a snack bar for our Student Ministry Center. We no longer have a Busy Baby Room. Mothers with crying or nursing babies now have semi-private areas in our lobby where they can sit in comfort on couches and watch the service through closed-circuit television monitors along with other mothers or with their husbands. These mothers don’t “drop off their babies, not (to) be bothered by them” as a way to “torture” “an infant or toddler” because “they think mom’s dead when the door closes.” You wouldn’t be stretching things just a little would you? Sort of “going over the top” to in an effort to paint the worst possible picture of those you disagree with, would you?

I never said the Social Affairs Unit is a Christian think tank.

You identified the book they wrote as one of the best Christian book in 20 years. Most of the writers did not write with Christianity in mind. From the review, the only review I found, the author saw it as I. The book is a collection of essays about society. The only essays describing the Orthodox Christian are not at all flattering and without prescription.

Consider away, sentimentalism is not a Christian subject. The authors make it predominantly a political and societal one.

●The“Busy Baby Room” was in our old sanctuary. ... You wouldn’t be stretching things just a little would you? Sort of “going over the top” to in an effort to paint the worst possible picture of those you disagree with, would you?

No. The worst would contain research confirming ongoing abandonment issues and your complicity in enabling mothers to abandon their infants in exchange for your personal comfort and financial gain from increased attendance. You should no more have these isolation chambers than you should have private smoking rooms (though if it helped your bottom line...).

Considering my source is a current page one posting by a Fresno Bee columnist, you should probably take any complaints you have to him. Sincere, loving mothers do not want to be separated from their infants. They don't want to be socially ostracized. They don't want to be hurried out of the sanctuary because their infant makes normal baby sounds. Certainly you must have learned the truth of my words given you no longer have the isolation chambers.

(Your response) You identified the book they wrote as one of the best Christian book in 20 years. Most of the writers did not write with Christianity in mind.

●You apparently do actually and really and literally have a problem reading English. Here is what you left out of my quote:

I consider “Faking It” one of the most important Christian books of the last two decades because it is written from an orthodox Christian perspective as a critique of the sentimentalization of modern society.

●Let’s try this again and see if I can break it down to a level that even you can grasp.

1. I never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never...etc. claimed that the Social Affairs Unit is a “Christian think tank.” This is something that you were mistakenly asserting that I thought or wrote. I did not assert this...let me repeat that ... I did not assert this.

2. What I asserted is that “Faking It” is an important book for Christians to read because it is written from a an “orthodox Christian perspective” (by think tank from the UK focused on social issues). It is a critique of the sentimentalization of modern society from the perspective of Original Sin and Pelagianism. (I’m sure this rings a bell for you). While the think tank is not per se a “Christian think tank” (which, I repeat, one more time; I never asserted), I believe it is one of the most important Christian books written in the last 20 years. It includes two chapters directly addressing the Christian church. It is edited and complied by two conservative Anglican priests.

You wrote: The worst would contain research confirming ongoing abandonment issues and your complicity in enabling mothers to abandon their infants in exchange for your personal comfort and financial gain from increased attendance.

●All I can say is that you are either: A) completely off your rocker; B) cannot read and comprehend English; or C) you are willfully misconstruing whatever I write.

●One more time. A) the Busy Baby Room no longer exists; B) it was never, never, never, never, never, ever, ever, ever a place where mothers “abandon(ed) their infants.” It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy. Let me repeat that and paste it in a few times so that you can grasp the meaning of the words.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

It was a room where mothers could nurse their infants in privacy.

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting. I presume at the LDS church you force mothers nursing their babies to do so in public. Let me repeat:

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursery mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

Repeating...

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

●In our new sanctuary, nursing mothers have semi-private living-room settings to care for their infants in a family setting.

This is a blog run by an experienced LDS nursery worker. As she says, my name is “KATE, I'm 24, married with no kids, except for two hours on Sunday when I have 13 two year olds.” She goes on to say: “You and a two year old are placed in a small, bare, carpeted room for two hours. You do not really know this child. The child has NO idea who you are. Can you handle it?” She provides lots of high quality resources for LDS nursery care-givers when they have to deal with crying babies who have been dropped off by their mothers. She also provides lots of links to other LDS sites that give assistance for helping to minister to and work with crying babies. Check it out. Looks good to me.

http://nocrylds.blogspot.com/2008/01/im-not-only-one.html

1. Ignore the “research confirming ongoing abandonment issues” and participate in the “complicity in enabling mothers to abandon their infants in exchange for ... the ... personal comfort and financial gain from increased attendance” in LDS churches.

Or...

2. They provide caring nursery facilities and volunteers that teach age-appropriate lessons to infants and toddlers so that parents can attend adult classes and gatherings with their peers.

It seems that you believe that LDS churches engage in engendering “abandonment issues” by “enabling mothers to abandon their infants” in exchange for “personal comfort and financial gain from increased attendance.” Frankly, I think the second alternative is more accurate regarding the LDS; but, you know better than I about the LDS.