Which is more bigoted, chanting “F the Mormons”

[MG 2.0]

And honestly, I have very little concern for who you do trust. But honestly, it was a bit unexpected. You came across as a straight shooter.

I’m only disappointed.

If you trust the judgement of Marcus in this instance, that tells me a lot. And no, I will not go back and pull up all the examples where she has been dishonest and manipulative. Folks can go back, if they want to, and see for themselves.

I’m done with that shenanigans. And anymore it doesn’t matter to me what she says. I don’t take her seriously. Along with a few others.

Just as an add-on, I would hazard a guess that there would more than likely be some here that would (maybe were?) have felt the urge to join in with the idiots in Cincinnati shouting an explicit obscenity towards decent and good people while watching the recent BYU game if they’d been in the stands.

Notice how calm and collected the BYU fans and players were in response to the idiocy of the crowd?

Regards,
MG

Thank you for the response. I’m noticing, though, that the conversation has steadily moved away from the actual points we were discussing and into assessments of who is trustworthy, who is manipulative, and now speculation about which posters might join unruly sports crowds. That’s quite a shift from where we started.

For what it’s worth, Marcus’s assessment hasn’t seemed out of step to me; if anything, several of us have been disappointed—not because of allegiance to anyone’s “side,” but because the less you address the actual arguments, the more you reinforce exactly what people are observing.

Does “straight-shooter” include making observations you don’t agree with, or does it only apply until the moment someone raises a point you’d rather not address? The more you move away from the actual issues into disappointment, labels, and imagined stadium crowds, the more it looks like you’re avoiding the substance of the discussion.

Alright, steer it back where you would like it to go. If there is anything of interest I'll join in.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

[img]

Alright, steer it back where you would like it to go. If there is anything of interest I'll join in.

Since you’re inviting a reset, here are the two points I’d genuinely like clarity on:

1. The sports analogy doesn’t really support your claim. I’m old enough to remember when a BYU player took off his helmet to swing it at someone, so the idea that “BYU fans and players are always calm and collected” doesn’t land. And more importantly: missionaries introducing polite critique is still critique—which is fine, because it’s okay to critique ideas we don’t agree with. Your argument seems to insist members never criticize others’ beliefs while the foundational book explicitly does that.

What is odd to me is that you haven’t acknowledge that—it’s a foundational tenet of the Restoration.

2. About “twisting your words.” Where exactly did that happen? I’m asking directly, because that accusation keeps being repeated without any concrete example.

Bonus point from your own analogy:

The Cincinnati incident ended with fines and public apologies. If we apply your logic consistently, does that mean the Church should apologize for the Book of Mormon essentially calling every other belief corrupt?

Those are the specific issues I’d like to keep on the table.

[bill4long]

At the end of the day, everyone has their own views about their culture and reality at large.

Learn to deal with it. And stop listening to "the news" most days. Because it's 90% BS. And it's not good for me. Not much you can do about it.

Get involved with organizations that help you live your true heart. Make some new friends. Learn to love unselfishly.

Blessings on y'all.

[drumdude]

MG,

Could you imagine a world where atheists campaign to prevent Mormons from being married?

That’s the level of bigotry that the Mormon church inflicted on gays in 2008.

Do you have a comment on this?

Thanks,
DD

[MG 2.0]

Alright, steer it back where you would like it to go. If there is anything of interest I'll join in.

Since you’re inviting a reset, here are the two points I’d genuinely like clarity on:

1. The sports analogy doesn’t really support your claim. I’m old enough to remember when a BYU player took off his helmet to swing it at someone, so the idea that “BYU fans and players are always calm and collected” doesn’t land.

I think I remember that. Isolated incident. Not a large crowd of people chanting in unison.

And more importantly: missionaries introducing polite critique is still critique—which is fine, because it’s okay to critique ideas we don’t agree with. Your argument seems to insist members never criticize others’ beliefs while the foundational book explicitly does that.

I suppose you can take it how you want it. Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning.

2. About “twisting your words.” Where exactly did that happen? I’m asking directly, because that accusation keeps being repeated without any concrete example.

It's been that way for a long time. I would suppose that if you put 'Marcus' or 'twisting' or 'straw man' into the search bar and do a little digging around you'll come up with a myriad of examples. You can simply choose not to believe me and/or take me seriously on this point I guess.

Bonus point from your own analogy:

The Cincinnati incident ended with fines and public apologies. If we apply your logic consistently, does that mean the Church should apologize for the Book of Mormon essentially calling every other belief corrupt?

Cincinnati football game involved a specific incident with legal and social consequences (fines, apologies). The Book of Mormon is a foundational scripture. Apologizing for it would undermine the Church’s own doctrinal authority. Categorically different. Institutions apologize for actions, not for the existence of their core beliefs.

Religions rarely apologize for their truth claims, even if those claims are exclusivist.

In Cincinnati, the offended party was a civic/legal authority requiring restitution. In scripture, the “offended party” is essentially everyone outside the faith. If applied consistently, every exclusivist religion would need to apologize for its core doctrines, which would make the act of holding distinct beliefs impossible.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Since you’re inviting a reset, here are the two points I’d genuinely like clarity on:

1. The sports analogy doesn’t really support your claim. I’m old enough to remember when a BYU player took off his helmet to swing it at someone, so the idea that “BYU fans and players are always calm and collected” doesn’t land.

I think I remember that. Isolated incident. Not a large crowd of people chanting in unison.

And more importantly: missionaries introducing polite critique is still critique—which is fine, because it’s okay to critique ideas we don’t agree with. Your argument seems to insist members never criticize others’ beliefs while the foundational book explicitly does that.

I suppose you can take it how you want it. Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning.

2. About “twisting your words.” Where exactly did that happen? I’m asking directly, because that accusation keeps being repeated without any concrete example.

It's been that way for a long time. I would suppose that if you put 'Marcus' or 'twisting' or 'straw man' into the search bar and do a little digging around you'll come up with a myriad of examples. You can simply choose not to believe me and/or take me seriously on this point I guess.

Bonus point from your own analogy:

The Cincinnati incident ended with fines and public apologies. If we apply your logic consistently, does that mean the Church should apologize for the Book of Mormon essentially calling every other belief corrupt?

Cincinnati football game involved a specific incident with legal and social consequences (fines, apologies). The Book of Mormon is a foundational scripture. Apologizing for it would undermine the Church’s own doctrinal authority. Categorically different. Institutions apologize for actions, not for the existence of their core beliefs.

Religions rarely apologize for their truth claims, even if those claims are exclusivist.

In Cincinnati, the offended party was a civic/legal authority requiring restitution. In scripture, the “offended party” is essentially everyone outside the faith. If applied consistently, every exclusivist religion would need to apologize for its core doctrines, which would make the act of holding distinct beliefs impossible.

Regards,
MG

"Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning."

Thanks for that! It seems that you are admitting as fact that what the missionaries were doing amounts to delivering criticism of others' beliefs. Good - we're making progress, since you are no longer denying that members and missionaries effectively criticise the beliefs of non-members.

The justification you appear to be suggesting is that it was really their god who was doing it, and not the missionaries themselves. Are you suggesting that every time a member/missionary criticises the beliefs of non-members, we are expected to accept that criticism as really coming from Mormon god? If not, how are we to distinguish human criticism from your god's criticism.

[Marcus]

Since you’re inviting a reset, here are the two points I’d genuinely like clarity on:

1. The sports analogy doesn’t really support your claim. I’m old enough to remember when a BYU player took off his helmet to swing it at someone, so the idea that “BYU fans and players are always calm and collected” doesn’t land.

I think I remember that. Isolated incident. Not a large crowd of people chanting in unison.

And more importantly: missionaries introducing polite critique is still critique—which is fine, because it’s okay to critique ideas we don’t agree with. Your argument seems to insist members never criticize others’ beliefs while the foundational book explicitly does that.

I suppose you can take it how you want it. Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning.

2. About “twisting your words.” Where exactly did that happen? I’m asking directly, because that accusation keeps being repeated without any concrete example.

It's been that way for a long time. I would suppose that if you put 'Marcus' or 'twisting' or 'straw man' into the search bar and do a little digging around you'll come up with a myriad of examples. You can simply choose not to believe me and/or take me seriously on this point I guess...

So... again and still, 'no concrete example.' Requesting that others choose not to believe when there's nothing to believe seems to be a tautological request at best, but, to each his own.

[Marcus]

I think I remember that. Isolated incident. Not a large crowd of people chanting in unison.

I suppose you can take it how you want it. Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning.

It's been that way for a long time. I would suppose that if you put 'Marcus' or 'twisting' or 'straw man' into the search bar and do a little digging around you'll come up with a myriad of examples. You can simply choose not to believe me and/or take me seriously on this point I guess.

Cincinnati football game involved a specific incident with legal and social consequences (fines, apologies). The Book of Mormon is a foundational scripture. Apologizing for it would undermine the Church’s own doctrinal authority. Categorically different. Institutions apologize for actions, not for the existence of their core beliefs.

Religions rarely apologize for their truth claims, even if those claims are exclusivist.

In Cincinnati, the offended party was a civic/legal authority requiring restitution. In scripture, the “offended party” is essentially everyone outside the faith. If applied consistently, every exclusivist religion would need to apologize for its core doctrines, which would make the act of holding distinct beliefs impossible.

Regards,
MG

"Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning."

Thanks for that! It seems that you are admitting as fact that what the missionaries were doing amounts to delivering criticism of others' beliefs. Good - we're making progress, since you are no longer denying that members and missionaries effectively criticise the beliefs of non-members.

The justification you appear to be suggesting is that it was really their god who was doing it, and not the missionaries themselves. Are you suggesting that every time a member/missionary criticises the beliefs of non-members, we are expected to accept that criticism as really coming from Mormon god? If not, how are we to distinguish human criticism from your god's criticism.

That is a very scary justification. So much suffering and damage has been inflicted in the name of someone's god. Accepting this rationale simply because it's been announced as such is irresponsible.

[I Have Questions]

I think I remember that. Isolated incident. Not a large crowd of people chanting in unison.



I suppose you can take it how you want it. Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning.



It's been that way for a long time. I would suppose that if you put 'Marcus' or 'twisting' or 'straw man' into the search bar and do a little digging around you'll come up with a myriad of examples. You can simply choose not to believe me and/or take me seriously on this point I guess.



Cincinnati football game involved a specific incident with legal and social consequences (fines, apologies). The Book of Mormon is a foundational scripture. Apologizing for it would undermine the Church’s own doctrinal authority. Categorically different. Institutions apologize for actions, not for the existence of their core beliefs.

Religions rarely apologize for their truth claims, even if those claims are exclusivist.

In Cincinnati, the offended party was a civic/legal authority requiring restitution. In scripture, the “offended party” is essentially everyone outside the faith. If applied consistently, every exclusivist religion would need to apologize for its core doctrines, which would make the act of holding distinct beliefs impossible.

Regards,
MG

"Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning."

Thanks for that! It seems that you are admitting as fact that what the missionaries were doing amounts to delivering criticism of others' beliefs. Good - we're making progress, since you are no longer denying that members and missionaries effectively criticise the beliefs of non-members.

The justification you appear to be suggesting is that it was really their god who was doing it, and not the missionaries themselves. Are you suggesting that every time a member/missionary criticises the beliefs of non-members, we are expected to accept that criticism as really coming from Mormon god? If not, how are we to distinguish human criticism from your god's criticism.

You could use that justification for the crowd in the Op. They weren’t chanting “F the Mormons” it was their <insert deity of choice> who was doing it.

[I Have Questions]

The Book of Mormon is a foundational scripture. Apologizing for it would undermine the Church’s own doctrinal authority. Categorically different. Institutions apologize for actions, not for the existence of their core beliefs.

The Church should apologise for (or at least explain) the verbatim plagiarised KJV Bible content that it portrays as being written 1,000 years earlier than it actually was, that it portrays as being “a translation of ancient plates” which it isn’t. The Church should apologise for the racist ideas that the Book of Mormon promotes.

As an aside, the Church as an institution has not apologised for running a decades long shell company scheme that was set up to illicitly avoid statutory financial reporting and to hide information from the members.