Blixa wrote: I think whyme posts as he does to convince himself of his own righteousness, to feel like he's doing "something" for a religion that he truly doesn't take seriously enough to live.
In other words, he is his own audience.
And what in my advice to H. was so terrible on that thread? Can you point it out to me? To be reflective and civil is not such a bad way to go. No one intended to hurt H. and his wife at church. The speaker did not mention his name out of spite. He did it for other reasons. Was it a good move by him? No. But the intentions were good and not evil. It seems we have become much less civil these days not allowing people some slack and quick to feel offended. Sad.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
LDSToronto wrote:What makes you an expert? How do you come to your conclusions?
I, and I'm sure others, are very curious.
H.
Think about it, H. Was my advice to you really so bad? Call the bishop to get his perspective, see if his interpretation matches yours, and express your displeasure with being mentioned at sacrament meeting. I think that this is a very civil way to handle it. Now of course, the cowboys here adviced you differently but I think my way is the more civil way. I have years of experience with things Mormon and my advice was not bad advice on your thread.
I gave the same advice. The advice, itself, was not bad. It was good, actually. However, what I found offensive, and, what I am sure LDST found offensive, was the fact that you basically called his children liars. You stated that there was no way he could know what was actually said. Well, his kids were there, and told him!
You come off as a "know it all". You don't acknowledge an individual's pain, or the truthfulness of their personal story, particularly when it is told with sincerity. THAT is what folks here take issue with.
Blixa wrote:I think Ceeboo summed up whyme's M.O. quite succinctly:
We know that you continue to s*** on, dismiss, and take away from the many things that human beings share on this board.
With as prolific a drive-by dumper as whyme, you end up seeing a fair amount in what others quote even if you have him on ignore. There are only ever two notes played: the waving about of "the Witnesses!" and the disrespectful derails. Clearly, there is no advancing of a thoughtful argument and no attempt to sincerely persuade.
I think whyme posts as he does to convince himself of his own righteousness, to feel like he's doing "something" for a religion that he truly doesn't take seriously enough to live.
In other words, he is his own audience.
Yup. Whyme: the reason why God created the 'mark as foe' option.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
LDSToronto wrote:What makes you an expert? How do you come to your conclusions?
I, and I'm sure others, are very curious.
H.
Think about it, H. Was my advice to you really so bad? Call the bishop to get his perspective, see if his interpretation matches yours, and express your displeasure with being mentioned at sacrament meeting. I think that this is a very civil way to handle it. Now of course, the cowboys here adviced you differently but I think my way is the more civil way. I have years of experience with things Mormon and my advice was not bad advice on your thread.
Kid Rock wrote:Cowboy!!Baby! With the top let down and the sunshine shinin' West Coast Chillin' while the boone's whinen I want to be a Cowboy!Baby! Ride At night cause I sleep all day! Cowboy!Baby/I can smell a pig from a mile away
liz3564 wrote: I gave the same advice. The advice, itself, was not bad. It was good, actually. However, what I found offensive, and, what I am sure LDST found offensive, was the fact that you basically called his children liars. You stated that there was no way he could know what was actually said. Well, his kids were there, and told him!
.
Did I call his kids liars? I don't think so. I did tell him to check with the bishop to get his side of the story about what happened. And act accordingly. How people see events and how they feel about the event can be different for people. Best to get a sample about it and then do what one must.
Or maybe I should just fly off the handle about how someone interpreted it. Here is what I think: people interpret what I say regardless of how I say it. Is that my fault? Or the fault of the people not reading carefully and putting their own prejudice into my posts?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Blixa wrote: I think whyme posts as he does to convince himself of his own righteousness, to feel like he's doing "something" for a religion that he truly doesn't take seriously enough to live.
In other words, he is his own audience.
And was my advice bad? Did I give a terrible piece of advice to ldstoronto? What did I say? I said for him to call the bishop and see what happened and get his take on it. Then, express his displeasure about what happened and allow the bishop to apologize or allow the gentleman in question apologize. Now isn't that a civil way to go? Or should we fly off the handle and get revenge?
I feel sorry for you blixa but then again I feel sorry for many people on this board. To encourage someone to fly off the handle in a letter without checking all the facts from a third party is rather symbolic of the times we live in. Don't you think?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Buffalo wrote:why me, for God's sake, just STFU already.
Case in point with the above. The thread was addressed to me. But this sentence is perfectly fine on this forum. No problem. Rude? No, not at all.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Buffalo wrote:why me, for God's sake, just STFU already.
Case in point with the above. The thread was addressed to me. But this sentence is perfectly fine on this forum. No problem. Rude? No, not at all.
You only play three notes - attack people who tell personal stories and tell them it's all their fault, creepily lech on women, and C&P the same nonsense about the Book of Mormon witnesses over and over. Find a new note to play.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
why me wrote:I feel sorry for you blixa but then again I feel sorry for many people on this board. To encourage someone to fly off the handle in a letter without checking all the facts from a third party is rather symbolic of the times we live in. Don't you think?
You feel sorry for many people on this board? One more reason why people don't like you.
