DiscussMormonism.com

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Hello Mr. Maklelan,

After watching that video, can you honestly say the Mormon church is living by the Golden Rule?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Hello Mr. Maklelan,

After watching that video, can you honestly say the Mormon church is living by the Golden Rule?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Darin wrote:The claims of "pure idoicy," "ignorance," and "hatred" are really no better than those that accuse many Mormons of "bigotry."

maklelan wrote:You're right, of course, but I honestly don't know how to get through to someone who seems utterly and absolutely incapable of rational and objective thought. This forum won't let me ignore him, so I'm all but forced to read his responses.

Morrissey wrote: Have you ever considered that this is precisely how some other posters view you? After my exchange with you--in which you consistently failed to comprehend what was a quite simple point and in doing so, you routinely misunderstood and mischaracterized my argument (an argument other posters had no trouble understanding) all the while accusing me of intellectual perfidy--I came away with the impression that you are a well-intentioned, smart person, but one is who can be quite obtuse at times, and totally unaware of it.

Now I know that you have not-so-flattering opinion of me, but from where I sit, I think you are way to liberal with your use of the terms 'idiocy,' 'ignorance,' 'hatred,' etc. If someone disagrees with you, or you disagree with them, this type of behavior appears to be your fallback position.

In this case, I don't see a lot of idiocy being demonstrated. I do see a lot of difference of opinion and interpretation, however. You appear to fail to realize that what YOU perceive to be accurate does not establish the standard for others. There is plenty of room for honest disagreement on this issue, as with others. Disagreeing with you does not make one irrational, as much as you think this to be the case.

(And yes, critics here can be, and are, just as guilty of the same behavior.)

Morrissey wrote:In this case, I don't see a lot of idiocy being demonstrated.

maklelan wrote:

Morrissey wrote:In this case, I don't see a lot of idiocy being demonstrated.

So you think the Doc's criticism is valid? That the video in question shows the church isn't "living by the golden rule"? You think that's an intelligent and insightful critique?

Morrissey wrote:Not sure as I haven't watched the video. I have seen enough, however, to realize that very few things of this nature lend themselves to absolutely unambiguous interpretation.

Morrissey wrote:I am inclined not, however, to find this comment totally vacuous. I can imagine that it might be a valid criticism in this case, depending on what actually happened and whether the behavior by the security guards was warranted. (Note, I am not saying it was or was not. I have no position on this incident as to who was more at fault.)

I can see, moreover, how it may go to the argument I've heard "it's private property, they can do what they want.' True, but while perhaps a legal justification, it falls short of a moral justification. It may be the case that a member of the LDS Church might reasonably ask him/her self whether the tables were turned, they would continue to find reason to justify the behavior of the security guards.

Another thing I've learned is that people who belong to and identify with a tribe (as it were) do not tend to engage in any meaningful self-introspection when the interests of their tribe are perceived to be at stake.

Morrissey wrote:Not sure as I haven't watched the video. I have seen enough, however, to realize that very few things of this nature lend themselves to absolutely unambiguous interpretation.

maklelan wrote:Then watch the video and come back and let me know if his assessment is relevant.

Morrissey wrote:I am inclined not, however, to find this comment totally vacuous. I can imagine that it might be a valid criticism in this case, depending on what actually happened and whether the behavior by the security guards was warranted. (Note, I am not saying it was or was not. I have no position on this incident as to who was more at fault.)

I can see, moreover, how it may go to the argument I've heard "it's private property, they can do what they want.' True, but while perhaps a legal justification, it falls short of a moral justification. It may be the case that a member of the LDS Church might reasonably ask him/her self whether the tables were turned, they would continue to find reason to justify the behavior of the security guards.

Another thing I've learned is that people who belong to and identify with a tribe (as it were) do not tend to engage in any meaningful self-introspection when the interests of their tribe are perceived to be at stake.

maklelan wrote:I'm not addressing the question of the the appropriateness of the actions of the security personnel, I'm asking if you think the critique that what they did shows the church is not "living the golden rule" is a valid critique.

Morrissey wrote:Maybe later. Too busy now. Ultimately, however, it is really unimportant to me.

Morrissey wrote:Ok, maybe the Dr. can correct me if I'm wrong, but I see the two as inseparable as the security guards work for the Church and thus represent it in this case. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Church disapproves of the security guards' behavior. I see their behavior as the crux of the issue and highly relevant to the Dr.'s comments.

Morrissey wrote:Maybe later. Too busy now. Ultimately, however, it is really unimportant to me.

maklelan wrote:That's an odd thing to say as you continue posting in this thread.

Morrissey wrote:Ok, maybe the Dr. can correct me if I'm wrong, but I see the two as inseparable as the security guards work for the Church and thus represent it in this case. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Church disapproves of the security guards' behavior. I see their behavior as the crux of the issue and highly relevant to the Dr.'s comments.

maklelan wrote:So can you respond to my other questions for Doc? Is a cop who fires back at an armed criminal not living the golden rule? Am I not living the golden rule if I punch a guy who's trying to grope my wife? Am I not living the golden rule if I ground my daughter for trying to sneak out at night?

maklelan wrote:Doc's comment is based on the utterly asinine idea that the golden rule precludes doing anything to inconvenience or hurt someone, irrespective of their actions.