Mammon v. God

Kevin Barney's usual passive-aggressive approach to making sin seem acceptable has resulted in predictable comments.

The entire tenor of the comments in this thread can be summed up thusly: You can serve God and Mammon. An organization that supports the church's position, and one that actively fights against the church and its teachings - both are fine! You can serve two masters after all.

I can't decide which is worse

Terryl Givens declaring that selling your soul to Satan is actually an act of moral goodness and daring, or Daniel's theologically tone deaf rants about how evil Eve is (Givens misses the point that Eve did not sell her soul to the Devil, whereas Faust did. There's a big difference between transgressing and frickin' SELLING YOUR SOUL TO THE ADVERSARY OF ALL THAT IS GOOD! Daniel, on the other hand, apparently doesn't pay attention in church or General Conference).

Well, at least Terryl Givens is eloquent and well spoken. But then, the devil can be as well. So, perhaps Daniels inartistic-ness means he's less diabolical. Or not.

[Plus - the Mormon Reivew has Kaimi as an editor. I mean, what? That guy admittedly thinks the church is false and full of patriarchal bull[crap]. It seems like there should be some standards at the Review - like perhaps the editors shouldn't be actively working to undermine the General Authorities? But given that rambling, nonsensical article on Battlestar Galactica, they haven't exactly been off to an auspicious start].