![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 67 to 91 of 91. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on August 28, 2006, at 11:26:57
In reply to Lou's response to SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 9:57:26
> Friends,
> It is written her,[..the email..posts..]
> The posts here are a matter of public concern and go to the public's interest and can be emailed. They are plainly visible here and if those that want me to send them to them, I am only sending what is already here to see to save them time to search.
> Let us keep in mind that we can not post some URLs on the board, but anyone can email the URLs here to anyone, for it is stated here that the URL of a particular blog can not be posted here, but it could be in the babble mail or in an email.
> Lou PilderJust be careful that you don't get blocked...
- Scott
Posted by Racer on August 28, 2006, at 12:42:32
In reply to Lou's response to SLS's post, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2006, at 10:41:13
> Those that are interested can email me for those and if you do not want your email to me to be known, others have opened a Yahoo email account and used that to email me to retain anonimity.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.netI guess I just don't understand why you won't just use babblemail? Why should anyone else have to go to the trouble of setting up an anonymous email account, just to find out what you have to say? There's already an anonymous feature set up here on this site. Why not just use it?
While I might be interested in hearing the rest of what you have to say, I'm certainly not interested in going to all that trouble, just because you choose not to use Babblemail.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 28, 2006, at 14:40:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to SLS's post » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 28, 2006, at 12:42:32
Babblemail is subject to the civility rules.
Posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 22:20:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 20:21:54
> Below is the URL of the search results I obtained by using the same search terms and the site's scripture search tool. Please note, I inserted a space after "org" in order to avoid posting a link to material that could be considered not civil. The actual URL does not contain that space, and you must remove it in order to access the link.
> [xxx]Well, this might be better fodder for the Religion board, but its context is here, so...
I did do that search, completed the URL as gg suggested, and the only reference in that search regarding Jews killing Jesus is reference #44 to The Book of Mormon 7:5. Taken out of context, as many people might do, it can be seen as antisemitic and used as "justification" of such beliefs.
Reading all the The Book of Mormon (not the Mormon Bible, but that particular book) illustrates that 7:5 is part of a rebuke of how his audience has forgotten that they were once children of Israel, and how their violence has further separated themselves from the true children of Israel. But these are the words of a man -- Mormon, seen as a later prophet within the Judeo-Christian framework.
Further reading -- The second book of Nephi (who was Mormon's father) Chapter 29 is quite interesting. In it Nephi quotes the direct word of God rebuking the Gentiles for their antisemitism: "O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have acursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people." I would think this particular direct relation of the Word of God should illustrate the LDS view on anitsemitism; at least those who hold true to their Covenant.
The context of quotes must always be examined. The shorter the quote, the more important its context. Revealing that context can either show the quote as genuine in the connotation implied, or reveal the use of the quote as a fraud and a misappropriation of its true intent and meaning.
Lou, I'm not going to email you for URLs, valid or not-valid (ie whether anything still exists there) for your evidence. I've taken the time to talk to a number of Mormons doing their missionary service (they have a dormitory and church a few blocks from my apartment here in NYC). I've heard nothing but religious tolerance, respect, and even love for the Judeo-Christian faiths that came before the Church of Latter Day Saints was founded (and the same for those founded after it). They hold the same respect and interest in religions outside this tradition. I've heard nothing but genuine interest in them about finding out about other faiths, given the teachings of their faith.
So, to call for the "reinstatement" of pages illustrating antisemitic statements, particularly misappropriations of The Book of Mormon (the whole thing this time) should give fair weight to how the statements can be construed as anti-Semitic **and** how they are also in their misrepresentation anti-Mormon.
If any wrongs are to be addressed, all wrongs an event caused should be addressed. Would you not think that reasonable?
Posted by Dinah on September 1, 2006, at 23:43:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg, posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 22:20:56
I thank you for that.
I have been concerned that this entire subject might lead people to believe that Mormons are antisemitic, while nothing is further from the truth.
I learned to be a semitophile at my Mormon mother's knee, and have never heard anything but respect for Jews and for the Jewish covenant with God from any Mormon I've ever spoken to. I was *specifically* taught in the Mormon church to respect the covenant God made with Abraham and the Mosaic code.
Of all the Christian denominations with which I've been affiliated, I have found the LDS church *particularly* respectful of the Jewish faith, Jewish ideals, etc. Which is not to say that the other Christian denominations were antisemitic. I've found a refreshing ecumenical spirit in many many places.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 7:28:37
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg, posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 22:20:56
Friends,
It is written,[...{Taken out of context}..it (can be seen as antisemitic) and used as "justification of such beliefs..].
Well, as being taken out of context, I think that if the post was restored, that each person could make their own determination as to if the statement in question is or is not out of context and that is one of the reasons that I would like to have the post restored. The verse before that one in that list of verses gives more to what the verse you cited says and defines the context.
If the post was restored, then I could have the opportunity to post a response from my perspective there.
Reading the statement in question, there is the imperitive in it. As to how this verse has been used for 2000 years is evident historically. I would welcome any discussion to show what the verse says in its context by restoring the post to its original.
If anyone is interested in this discussion and would like the original that is in discussion, you could email me for the original if you would like.
Lou PIlder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 8:11:44
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 7:28:37
Friends,
It is written,[...Revealing the context can either show...].
I agree that the context is relevant here and that is why I am asking permissiom to post the restored post so that a discussion could ensue to examine the context.
It is written,[...illistrating {antisemitic} statements...]
Friends, I do not believe that I have posted that the statements are antisemitic. What I have posted is that there are statements that have {the potential, IMO, to arrouse antisemitic feelings.}and have been used historically for such. When they are posted in any forum, there is that potential. In this forum, I am requesting that the posts be restored so that I have the opportunity to post from my perspective. I am not asking that the posts be sanctioned, but I am asking for the opportunity to post my response to them and would like them restored to do so. And since I am a Jew, the response will come from the Jewish perspective.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 8:43:52
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 8:11:44
Friends,
It is written,[...Further reading...(of the LDS verses)...]
I do not believe that I posted the church's affilliation to the posts in question here and it is not my intention to focus on any one affilliation, for the statements stand on their own, even if they are not part of a church's doctrins. In other words, they could be posted by an atheist and still have the potential,IMO, to arrouse antisemitic feelings and that is why I would like the opportunity to post a response to those statements on the board where they were. My response could give a balance to the perspective that is there. Then there could be a discussion and all could post their perspective.
Could you please not post anything that could have the potential to be thought to mean that you are concluding that I am talking about a particular church, for it is the statements in question that I would like to post my response to and not the church's position on them?
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on September 2, 2006, at 9:16:16
In reply to Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 8:11:44
> And since I am a Jew, the response will come from the Jewish perspective.
Certainly, the response will come from one Jewish person's perspective.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 9:34:04
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post-, posted by SLS on September 2, 2006, at 9:16:16
Friends,
It is written here,[..from one Jewish person's perspective...]
There is an overiding perspective of the Jews concerning the posts in question. The perspective that I would like to post is one that is the same as the Jewish community as a whole.
If you would like to know this perspective, you could email me and I will send it to you at your request. Then if you know of another perspective that the Jews hold in regards to the statemnts in question, I would like if you could send it to me.
Lou PIlder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 10:06:30
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg » finelinebob, posted by Dinah on September 1, 2006, at 23:43:31
Friends,
It is written here,[...might lead people to believe that Mormons are antisemitic, while nothing is further from the truth...].
Friends,it is not my intention to have a discussion as to if a particular church is "antisemitic" or not. But this post here has me wanting to respond to what could have the potential to lead some to think about what is the criteria for anything being antisemitic or not.
First, it is not my intention to show as to anything is antisemitic or not. The statements in question that I would like restored are in my concern as to IMO that they have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. So I would like to post a response as to how a Jewish person, sees those statements.
As to the criteria for anything being antisemitic, the internet can lead you to those definitions in a search as to what the commonly accepted criteria are.
But as to if a particular church is antisemitic, the criteria for such can be used to make that determination as to see if the church in question has for its doctrins what could be considered to be antisemitic by commonly accepted criteria.
Be advised that I also have had many conversations with many representatives of many denominations as a Jew. And in the conversations that I have had concerning how they view the Jews, if you would like those, I could email them to you at your request if you would like.
Lou Pilder
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2006, at 10:45:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg, posted by finelinebob on September 1, 2006, at 22:20:56
Friends,
It is written,[...how the statements can be construed as anti-Semitic...]
I think that this statement here speaks volumes.
You see, it is my same concern that the statements in question could have the potential to be construed to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. So I am asking for the administration to give me the permission to post the restoration of the posts to their original so that I can post a response as to how myself, a Jew, sees those statements in question. And there are not just one statement in question here, but many.
Now there is a way for anyone to do the restoration, so as to how this has happened is moot. For the question now is if I, or anyone else, has the permission to do so as pertaining to the interpretation of the new administrative rules that pertain to posting URLs and such.
In this administrative discussion, there has come up other issues and I am now requesting from the administration that I be allowed to post here in this thread the perspective from the Jewish community about these statements in question. Would that not be reasonable to request that I be allowed to post a link to that here?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2006, at 6:34:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gg » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2006, at 20:21:54
> Below is the URL of the search results I obtained by using the same search terms and the site's scripture search tool. Please note, I inserted a space after "org" in order to avoid posting a link to material that could be considered not civil. The actual URL does not contain that space, and you must remove it in order to access the link.
> [xxx]Thanks, but I think I need to consider that equivalent to posting it in one piece...
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on September 4, 2006, at 14:43:45
In reply to Re: inserted a space, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2006, at 6:34:18
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how else I could have demonstrated my point unless I took the same structure and used made up terms. I felt the need to keep the information grounded in reality versus hypothetical in order to make it easier for some to comprehend.
I apologize for almost linking to material which may be considered to be uncivil.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2006, at 14:31:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to aspects of flb's post-, posted by SLS on September 2, 2006, at 9:16:16
It is certainly *one* person's perspective.
There are as many perspectives as there are people and my rabbi taught me that all are valid.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2006, at 15:30:09
In reply to Re: Thank you Scott » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on September 5, 2006, at 14:31:19
Friends,
The Jewish perspective is what is generally held to be for the great majority of Jewish people as represented by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish advocacy groups that agree with each other in respect to this subject. The perspective in regards to the accusation made toward the Jews that is the subject here is published. My perspective is the same and is not my own. If anyone would like to see that perspective, you could email me for such, or do an internet search.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2006, at 15:47:46
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of AuuntieMel's post, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2006, at 15:30:09
Friends,
It is written here that [...all perspectives according to (some Rabbi) are valid...].
Well, without further clarification from the poster of such, I could add that the perspective that I could post is of the mainstream Jewish perspective that denies the accusation in question made to them. If there are other perspectives from Jews about the accusation in question here made toward the Jews, if anyone knows of such, could you email me with it if you can not post it?
Thanks in advance,
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2006, at 11:05:26
In reply to Re: inserted a space » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on September 4, 2006, at 14:43:45
Posted by AuntieMel on September 12, 2006, at 12:53:39
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of AuntieMel's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2006, at 15:47:46
A very close relative of mine worked for years for ADL and was an executive there for many years before retirement. This relative still does consulting work for them.
Imagine the dinnertime conversations about the state of the world and anti-Semitism.
Another close relative lived for years in Israel and still has kids living over there. Imagine those dinner conversations.
I've been to concentration camps and I know first hand the anger felt when seeing that.
But never, NEVER has any of these relatives, or myself, had the unmitigated gall to claim to represent an entire people.
Or the rudeness to refer to a very learned man as "some rabbi."
Now, Lou, I have saved the hundreds of emails you have sent, so go ahead and forward this post to the ADL and to U of C and to Hester and everyone else you've been emailing and I'll be happy to also forward them the ones you sent me.
But, do not post to me or about me or email me ever again.
Posted by SLS on September 12, 2006, at 13:26:05
In reply to Re: Now I'm really angry » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 12, 2006, at 12:53:39
You really are angry.
It seems like you had friendly relationship with Lou Pilder up until now. I am sad that it has been interrupted.
Be well.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on September 12, 2006, at 13:49:18
In reply to Re: Now I'm really angry, posted by SLS on September 12, 2006, at 13:26:05
Funny, once I thought the same thing.
That was a lot of water under the bridge ago, though.
Posted by Dinah on September 12, 2006, at 14:26:42
In reply to Re: Now I'm really angry » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 12, 2006, at 12:53:39
> Or the rudeness to refer to a very learned man as "some rabbi."
I'm sorry Mel. I understand that you are upset and frustrated, but I'm going to have to ask you to please not post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. And to remind you that if you have an issue with what is and isn't considered civil by Dr. Bob with regard to a particular post, that you should contact him by email. And to offer myself as civility buddy, should you feel the need.
I won't refer you to the FAQ, but if anyone is interested in learning more about the civility guidelines of the site, here's a link.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
As you know, Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. Please feel free to email him (or me) if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on September 12, 2006, at 15:22:30
In reply to Please be civil » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on September 12, 2006, at 14:26:42
I thought about it all the way home yesterday and gave myself a cool-off period. But I couldn't let it go.
You are right, though, that I should have used the new system and complained via the new channels.
Consider that done. I have registered the complaint.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2006, at 17:00:17
In reply to Re: Now I'm really angry » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 12, 2006, at 12:53:39
Friends,
It is written here,[...claim to represent an entire people...].
If this is concerning what is known as [{the} Jewish perspective],and that perspective is in regards to the accusation toward the Jews that Dr. Hsiung has posted is uncivil because it could lead Jews to feel accused,then please consider the following.
The Jewish people have many representatives that are advocacy groups for the Jews in regards to accusations such as the one in question. I agree with those groups perspective. The perspective is from the B'nai Brith and The Anti-Defamation League and I have checked the Jewish Defense League, the Union of Messianc Jewish Congregations, The Jews for Jesus and they all have the same perspective. I asked them all if they agree with the accusation made to the Jews in question and they all said that they did not. I agree with their perspective also and would like to post that perspective so that it could be included in the posts in question. It would not be me speaking, but me posting the Jewish perspective agreed by those groups that are Jewish advocacy groups. I would like to post a URL from the ADL, The B'nai Brith, The Union of Mesianc Jewish Congregations,and The Jewish Defense League concerning their perspective about the accusation toward the Jews in question
If you would like to see what I am asking to post here, you could email me if you like and I will send it to you.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2006, at 17:28:12
In reply to Re: Now I'm really angry » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on September 12, 2006, at 12:53:39
Friends,
It is written here,[...represent an entire people...]
The perspective that I would like to post is the ADL's response to Mel Gibson's movie that the Jewish community wanted the bible verses that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings , that those verses be redacted. Mr. Gibson did agree to redact those verses from the movie.
I have experianced being in an angry mob,having to run for my life durring the season when the play of the same as the movie in question was put on because I am a Jew.
I do not know of any Jew that accepts the accusation made to the Jews in question here.
I ask: If you know that there is a different perspective from the Jewish community as to the accusation made toward the Jews in question here, than the one from the ADl and the B'nai Brith and such, could you email me that?
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.