"Defenders" Conduct Consistent with Teachings of P

[_moksha]

I have appreciated not being bludgeoned by my fellow LDS on other sites. MAD is an exception. I think it must stem from a posting culture that goes back many years on prior boards. Something must have occurred for this seemingly aberrant difference to exist.

[_asbestosman]

Asbestos, I actually think you might be a bit afraid of Selek and others--a coward of sorts as are all of the others who are so willing to correct me at every turn, but will never, ever, ever, ever correct one of their "team" members even though such are so obviously in violation of what you all claim to believe. I suppose I did not receive the critiism well, eh?

It may be true that I'm a coward at MA&D, but I do criticize my own team on this board. I have criticized coggins, gazelam, The Nehor, Jason Bourne, and rcrocket.

I also report my own team at MA&D. In fact, I reported Selek on that thread.

Within myself, I believe I give you as much room for bad days or behavior as I give them. It's just that they never come here complaining about how their opponents at MA&D treat them, so I really don't see opportunity of telling them why I think some might be treating them a bit harshly.

If you are looking for validation for how you feel because of them, well, yeah, I think some are a bit too quick to pounce. I think cksalmon gets dogpiled a bit too quick by some of them for example, and cksalmon isn't exactly on my team (even though I like him). I can also easily imagine feelings you might have from questions of faith I remember having a particularly difficult time with some things on my mission--and that was before I heard anything critical about the Book of Abraham, etc., etc.

I also think it worthwhile to consider those at MA&D who aren't so quick to pounce. They are often mentioned as favorites by posters here. People like Katherine-the-Great, Koakiapo, Doctor Steuss, and so on. You might want to consider them for a few questions--maybe even in a PM. I hope that's good advice though. They may not like me making such a suggestion.

Anyhow, I think this will be the last of my advice. I'm sure I've more than worn out my welcome with you in that regard.

[_Doctor Steuss]

For what it's worth, I have reported abman. ;-)

Doctor "Coward" Steuss

[_LifeOnaPlate]

sissy

[_Doctor Steuss]

sissy

I have reported you for this post.

Doctor "Same Pigmentation As The Kettle" Steuss

[_guy sajer]

Do you expect internal consistency from anyone, let alone Mopologists?

I've come to the conclusion that most people construct moral arguments on the basis of convenience rather than true principle. True principle requires that either (1) we refrain from behavior inconsistent with our stated moral beliefs or (2) we are at least cognizant of the times when we violate our moral beliefs and we feel shame for it (nobody is perfect, right?). Convenience, in contrast, means that our apply our moral beliefs selectively depending on the extent to which they grant us some kind of advantage, all the while holding other people accountable for them regardless of the circumstances.

We are all (or most of us) masters of convenience and poor practitioners of principle.

Only the apparent hypocrisy of convenience appears magnified when practiced by self-righteous blowhards who claim to speak for God, or to be the sole possessors of God's true message, and who hold others accountable, either in this life or the next, for accepting the same beliefs.

In like manner, we can legitimate hold higher expectations for those who claim to be enfused with the light, knowledge, and love of Christ, and we rightly ridicule them when, at the same time, they are so unforgiving and intolerant of others persons' sins.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

sissy

I have reported you for this post.

Doctor "Same Pigmentation As The Kettle" Steuss

up that, man.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I've come to the conclusion that most people construct moral arguments on the basis of convenience rather than true principle. True principle requires that either (1) we refrain from behavior inconsistent with our stated moral beliefs or (2) we are at least cognizant of the times when we violate our moral beliefs and we feel shame for it (nobody is perfect, right?). Convenience, in contrast, means that our apply our moral beliefs selectively depending on the extent to which they grant us some kind of advantage, all the while holding other people accountable for them regardless of the circumstances.

We are all (or most of us) masters of convenience and poor practitioners of principle.

That is an interesting way of looking at it. I see it as a circle within a circle. The inside circle represents the "real," and the outside represents the "ideal." To deal with cognitive dissonance, some people erase the outer circle, thus saying the "ideal" is not attainable, and those who try are fools, dupes, or even hypocrites.

Conversely, others erase the "real" and float along in a world where all must be right and good, and they look down on the people at the "real" line as fools and jerks, sinners, losers, evil, etc.

There is a large gap between the two lines, where the real and the ideal have not met. Are either lines really there? Do they represent the state we ought to be in? Interesting stuff.

Only the apparent hypocrisy of convenience appears magnified when practiced by self-righteous blowhards who claim to speak for God, or to be the sole possessors of God's true message, and who hold others accountable, either in this life or the next, for accepting the same beliefs.

I hadn't read this part before I finished typing above, oops! ;)

In like manner, we can legitimate hold higher expectations for those who claim to be enfused with the light, knowledge, and love of Christ, and we rightly ridicule them when, at the same time, they are so unforgiving and intolerant of others persons' sins.

I think you'd just be playing the same game as they are, by doing that. [/quote]

[_mms]

Asbestos, I actually think you might be a bit afraid of Selek and others--a coward of sorts as are all of the others who are so willing to correct me at every turn, but will never, ever, ever, ever correct one of their "team" members even though such are so obviously in violation of what you all claim to believe. I suppose I did not receive the critiism well, eh?

It may be true that I'm a coward at MA&D, but I do criticize my own team on this board. I have criticized coggins, gazelam, The Nehor, Jason Bourne, and rcrocket.

I also report my own team at MA&D. In fact, I reported Selek on that thread.

Within myself, I believe I give you as much room for bad days or behavior as I give them. It's just that they never come here complaining about how their opponents at MA&D treat them, so I really don't see opportunity of telling them why I think some might be treating them a bit harshly.

If you are looking for validation for how you feel because of them, well, yeah, I think some are a bit too quick to pounce. I think cksalmon gets dogpiled a bit too quick by some of them for example, and cksalmon isn't exactly on my team (even though I like him). I can also easily imagine feelings you might have from questions of faith I remember having a particularly difficult time with some things on my mission--and that was before I heard anything critical about the Book of Abraham, etc., etc.

I also think it worthwhile to consider those at MA&D who aren't so quick to pounce. They are often mentioned as favorites by posters here. People like Katherine-the-Great, Koakiapo, Doctor Steuss, and so on. You might want to consider them for a few questions--maybe even in a PM. I hope that's good advice though. They may not like me making such a suggestion.

Anyhow, I think this will be the last of my advice. I'm sure I've more than worn out my welcome with you in that regard.

I am no authority on this, but it seems to me that you are good guy and have people's best interests at heart. I appreciate (even though it does not seem like it) you taking the time to provide your thoughts. It seems, ultimately, that you would like me to move past the back and forth stuff and get to the issues so that I might find resolution. I understand, to some degree, your hesitation to take on the Selek's of the world. Again, thanks for your input.

Best,

mms

[_wenglund]

Can someone violate the Savior's counsel to "judging not", by condeming others for violating the Savior's counsel to "turning the other cheek"?

I believe so (though I am not suggesting that is what may have happened here). Seeming paradoxes such as this tend to inadvertantly rise up throughout life, as well as within the restored gospel, and it becomes a welcomed challenge to figure the best ways to resolve them. Oft times that requires becoming comfortable with some measure of unavoidable inconsistency. ;-)

Whatever the case, if one's primary intent is to affect positive change in other peoples' attitudes and behaviors, I am not sure that fingerpointing or gossiping about them is the most productive strategy. Do you?

If not, then what strategy do you think may be effective?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-