Ray A wrote:I think harmony has a testimony, and I don't doubt her belief. I think she has trouble reconciling many things which appear, and are, contradictory. It is natural for anyone to struggle with this. However, I still haven't worked out Scratch. Are you a believer, Scratch?
Mister Scratch wrote:Ray A wrote:I think harmony has a testimony, and I don't doubt her belief. I think she has trouble reconciling many things which appear, and are, contradictory. It is natural for anyone to struggle with this. However, I still haven't worked out Scratch. Are you a believer, Scratch?
Sort of. In general, I prefer not to say, in order to stave off ad hominem attack, which is rife amongst apologists. Perhaps if you were to PM me, I would tell you privately where I stand on this stuff.
Mister Scratch wrote:Ray A wrote:I think harmony has a testimony, and I don't doubt her belief. I think she has trouble reconciling many things which appear, and are, contradictory. It is natural for anyone to struggle with this. However, I still haven't worked out Scratch. Are you a believer, Scratch?
Sort of. In general, I prefer not to say, in order to stave off ad hominem attack, which is rife amongst apologists. Perhaps if you were to PM me, I would tell you privately where I stand on this stuff.
Ray, you are an idiot. Kevin was right: you are a totally moronic, stupid, knee-jerk hick bonehead. Do you not know how all of this started? All of this began on a thread in which many of us---myself included---were congratulating DCP on the publication of his Mohammed book! How stupid and/or ignorant are you? My compliments of DCP far, far outweigh his towards myself, this board, or anyone on it. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.
A poster on FAIR brought up the Strengthening the Church Members Committee, apparently disquieted that such a thing even exists. During the course of the thread, most posters, notably Charity, tried to pooh-pooh away the OP's concerns, labeling them "conspiracy theory," and generally making fun of the whole thing. But what's interesting is that Prof. Peterson himself has actually functioned as an "agent" (his own word) for this committee:
Daniel Peterson wrote:
"[sic] .. was once sent out, a number of years ago, as a kind of "agent" of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. My mission? To try to help a member of the Church whose apostasy was threatening his marriage and causing anguish to his very active wife, children, and parents. (The wife and parents, and his stake president, has asked for help.) The weapons of choice? Talking with him for about four hours in Salt Lake City, in the presence of his wife and stake president, and recommending some readings."
Four hours? In a confined space? And he wants to claim that the SCMC is some kind of innocuous "newspaper clipping service"? He's got to be kidding. Further, his denials on the matter are of the "he doth protest too much" variety:
Daniel Peterson wrote:
"It's not much more than a (very) small clipping service. Trust me on this one. There is no spying or covert action. No trappings of "Mission Impossible." No non-Scientologist Tom Cruise.
Some critics have severely overheated imaginations. "
It is worth pointing out that, even if he is correct and it's only "a (very) small clipping service" (and "service" seems an odd choice of words), the "operation" would still involve people combing through newspapers, journals, blogs, etc., etc., and this really doesn't seem like a very small task. It seems that Lavina Anderson was far closer to the mark when she labeled SCMC an "internal espionage" organization. In any case, DCP appears to be in "deeper" than some may have thought.
maklelan wrote:I was being honest when I said I would apologize if she explained that was how she interpreted what I said, but instead she ridiculed me for a misunderstanding that was on her part, in addition to the fact that she didn't try to explain once a very simple situation. Then Scratch has to come in here and try to pork barrel some stupid topic from another thread on to my sincerity. I was being sincere and none of you could resist the opportunity to kick me when you walked by. I'm not apologizing to any of you. You don't deserve the respect you've been given thus far and I'm disgusted by such a display of arrogance, disrespect and downright meanness. You guys make me sick.
liz3564 wrote:I'm sorry, Mak, but I don't think that Jersey Girl was simply trying to "kick you while you were down".
harmony wrote:Well, you were wrong. So what else is new?
liz3564 wrote:You took it upon yourself to make some pretty serious judgement calls against Harmony, and Jersey Girl showed you where you may have genuinely misunderstood what she was talking about. I didn't sense any rudeness in her initial tone in doing that. (She said "bite me" after you became indignant as well)
liz3564 wrote:I do think, and I've stated this before, that you crossed the line when you stated that Harmony was not worthy to hold a temple recommend. I don't care if you're a Bishop, a Bishop's Counselor, or a Stake President, who regularly conducts temple interviews. You are not HER Bishop, Counselor, or Stake President, so it is not your call.
maklelan wrote:I know it's not my call. If I'm going to be called out for stating the opinion that I did, however, then there will have to be massive reorganization to the moderating regulations of this board, because my opinion is remarkably tame compared to the abuse that I have had to wade through just to share my opinion on this website. I was told any viewpoint was valid, but while I brush off accusations of a homosexual relationship with my mission president (that no one else thought was inappropriate) I am being held accountable for telling harmony that I don't think she could pass a temple recommend interview if she were honest. I believe that there is a double standard here.
In addition, when I offer to apologize about calling someone a liar I continue to be belittled and derided. Then, when I say I'm not going to respond to that treatment I continue to be belittled and insulted.
I've yet to see someone who has disagreed with me about anything admit they were, or even may have been, mistaken, but I've done it several times.
I am capable of acting like an adult, but I do not see it from most of you all. You want me to apologize then you get harmony to start acting like a respectable human being. I'm only abrasive because it's the only way to get the attention of people on this board. You want me to stop then you show that your constituents can do the same.
Mak wrote:I know it's not my call. If I'm going to be called out for stating the opinion that I did, however, then there will have to be massive reorganization to the moderating regulations of this board, because my opinion is remarkably tame compared to the abuse that I have had to wade through just to share my opinion on this website. I was told any viewpoint was valid, but while I brush off accusations of a homosexual relationship with my mission president (that no one else thought was inappropriate) I am being held accountable for telling harmony that I don't think she could pass a temple recommend interview if she were honest. I believe that there is a double standard here. In addition, when I offer to apologize about calling someone a liar I continue to be belittled and derided. Then, when I say I'm not going to respond to that treatment I continue to be belittled and insulted. I've yet to see someone who has disagreed with me about anything admit they were, or even may have been, mistaken, but I've done it several times. I am capable of acting like an adult, but I do not see it from most of you all. You want me to apologize then you get harmony to start acting like a respectable human being. I'm only abrasive because it's the only way to get the attention of people on this board. You want me to stop then you show that your constituents can do the same.
Runtu wrote:I must have missed that. You're right, that is totally inappropriate and deserves condemnation.
Nobody deserves to be belittled or derided. I'm sorry you have been treated that way.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't admitted that because I'm never wrong or mistaken. ;-)
You do not need to be abrasive here. asbestosman has never been abrasive or rude, to my mind, and he seems to do just fine. I tend to tune out the rude and abrasive on both sides.
liz3564 wrote:Also.....I DID defend you on the thread where you were personally attacked. And I defended you, even though the thread was in the Telestial Forum, where personal attacks are allowed.
liz3564 wrote:Let me clarify something here. I was not addressing you as a Moderator when I stated that I felt you "crossed the line" in what you said to Harmony about the temple recommend. If I had been addressing you as a Moderator, I would have placed it in brackets with an official Moderator Note in red font. I was addressing you as "Liz", a fellow poster on this board.
From a moderating standpoint, you were completely within your rights to say whatever you wanted to say. Did Shades or I censor your comments? No, we didn't.
I was addressing you with my opinion, as a simple poster on the board, and as a life-long member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I was giving you my perception based on my knowledge of priesthood stewardship, and....it seems from your comments, that you agree with me about it not being your call to make those assumptions.
Also.....I DID defend you on the thread where you were personally attacked. And I defended you, even though the thread was in the Telestial Forum, where personal attacks are allowed.
I defended you not as a Moderator...but as a friend.
I defended Harmony not as a Moderator...but as a friend.