I think you hold grudges against a lot of innocent people. Against a religion full of a lot of innocent people.
I am not here to defend the religion, but I'd like to see a lot more equanimity directed to adherents of the Latter-day Saint faith. I don't get lots of profanity, labeling leaders "Satan" (do you really believe in "Satan" or are you intentionally poking the pig in the eye?), and so forth.
Maybe you weren't really as sincere as I thought. You're trying to pick a fight. You told me to leave you alone after I took a few digs at you and I obliged you and wanted to respect your wishes. Then you come along in a post and slam me by name and you make it clear you're not interested in having discourse with me. That was fine. I offered to part ways and tip hats.
But here you are, picking a fight with me. I think you're doing it because you know I'm the big bad Shulem, and you're trying to get a rise out of me because you're board tonight.
I'm all too happy to just leave you alone because you requested that and were sincere. But you brought up the above and if you want me to leave you alone then you'll need to leave me alone too. I mean come on, man -- you slammed me by name right here on the board as if you are trying to pick a fight.
So let's part ways.
Does that sound fair? I hold no grudges towards you at all.
I think you hold grudges against a lot of innocent people. Against a religion full of a lot of innocent people.
I am not here to defend the religion, but I'd like to see a lot more equanimity directed to adherents of the Latter-day Saint faith. I don't get lots of profanity, labeling leaders "Satan" (do you really believe in "Satan" or are you intentionally poking the pig in the eye?), and so forth.
I think what Shulem does is helpful in getting over the magician's tricks the brethren promote. Take Pres Nelson for example. He claimed without support from the others of the Q15 that the Nov 2015 policy was somehow "revelation." He was then left on an island with no one supporting the big revelation that supposedly occurred to then Pres Monson, someone who wasn't all there due to old age. Then he had to eat crow when he walked back the hateful policy, falsely claiming another revelation. Further, he has this nonsense with his supposed revelations in the middle of the night directing scheduling changes and childish be thankful exercises. Perhaps he should be called NelSatan?
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
Indeed he should be named after Satan. He's faking his position of being a divinely appointed prophet of God. He's a Goddamn joke and he knows it.
Bastard Nelson is freaking evil. He disgusts me.
He's full of s%$@ for sure in how he claims mundane and crisis management corporate decisions are somehow "revelations." I can see satan influencing the guy if I believed in satan. I just think he is a narcissist corporatist that worships money above all else.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
Kish wrote:
Yes, we have so many believing LDS who try posting here. It would be more accurate to say that most never try in the first place. Point taken.
If you are referring to when I said "many tried," I think I was not clear. I was not referring to lds believers. I meant many posters here, in this thread, tried to respond appropriately to bob/fred/bob2/fred2/Ed, but his emotional challenges led him to reject sincere overtures in favor of indiscriminately interpreting all sorts of disparate responses as the same type of attack: an attack upon his beliefs. That kind of issue cannot be reduced to a conclusion that we're not nice to believing lds.
I would just prefer that you leave me alone. I gave you a try but there is nothing there. I guess you have expertise about the Book of Abraham but I don't think the evidence is there to support the Book (being solely a spiritual matter) and so I don't care to hear your challenges to it.
I'm all too happy to just leave you alone because you requested that and were sincere. But you brought up the above and if you want me to leave you alone then you'll need to leave me alone too. I mean come on, man -- you slammed me by name right here on the board as if you are trying to pick a fight.
So let's part ways.
Does that sound fair? I hold no grudges towards you at all.
I notice you didn't get an actual response to your request that the 'leaving alone' be a two-way street.
If you are referring to when I said "many tried," I think I was not clear. I was not referring to lds believers. I meant many posters here, in this thread, tried to respond appropriately to bob/fred/bob2/fred2/Ed, but his emotional challenges led him to reject sincere overtures in favor of indiscriminately interpreting all sorts of disparate responses as the same type of attack: an attack upon his beliefs. That kind of issue cannot be reduced to a conclusion that we're not nice to believing lds.
No, I wasn’t referring to that.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
