What is cruel and intolerant on this message board?

[_amantha]

I have reacted to Charity's posts with ridicule and derision. I have not been nice to Charity. But I take this position because I can see that she is not having a "discussion" with anyone. She is apologizing for her church in the most subtle and devious fashion.

So much of what is said to her appears to go right by her. So she either can't see some things because she is blinded by her cognitive dissonance or she is willfully ignoring these things. I believe the latter.

There is no real reasoning with her and this is why ridicule and derision are the only things which her comments deserve. She said it herself, she has seen ALL the arguments against her church and they don't phase her at all. That's not normal, which obviates her state of willful blindness.

There comes a time when kind words won't get the job done. You always hope that they will, but you must face the farce at some point. Beneficial revolutions have frequently required harshness and directness. We wish we could avoid them but history has shown that it is likely that we can't.

The revolution that needs to take place within Charity's heart and mind is not likely, but it is certain that discussing the probabilities and the "facts" aren't working and, almost certainly, never will. Some people are just too invested in their dogmas and their egos.

[_GoodK]

I don't stand out on street corners and call people Satan's minions.

No, instead you choose to do so on the internet.


Those people who teach their own truths have noquarrel with me. As long as you are teaching gospel truths, bringing people closer to the Savior, closer to living moral lives, doing good, you are on the Lord's side. Anyone who teaches othesr to hate is on Satan's side. That is not a hateful thing to say. It is acknowledging the situation.

Moniker claiemd it is hateful to say someone is evil. I think those who perform evil behaviors have earned it.

Oh my... how obnoxiously arrogant this statement is.

Christians constantly trumpet their own humility, yet seem to really be under the delusion that they not only know the creator of the universe, but they know him so personally as to be able to speak for him.

Christians also pretend to know who is on his "side" and who is on the other "side" of this nonsensical invisible tug-of-war.

I am genuinely frightened at the idea that there are millions of people that share your closed minded, tribalistic, and just plain intellectually dishonest beliefs. Statements like yours are my motivation to dispell religious dogma wherever I can find it.

[_charity]

I appreciate your attempt to describe "my problem."

I have reacted to Charity's posts with ridicule and derision. I have not been nice to Charity. But I take this position because I can see that she is not having a "discussion" with anyone. She is apologizing for her church in the most subtle and devious fashion.

I am not "apologizing" for the Church. Unless you are using the term "apologize" in the sense of defend, as in apologetics. And devious? I say what I mean and mean what I say. Please explain your use of the term "Devious."

So much of what is said to her appears to go right by her. So she either can't see some things because she is blinded by her cognitive dissonance or she is willfully ignoring these things. I believe the latter.

Nothing goes right by me. I just examine and discard what isn't true, real or worthwhile. I know that irritates people who think they have the perfect argument. It isn't really an insult to you if I don't agree with what you say.

There is no real reasoning with her and this is why ridicule and derision are the only things which her comments deserve.

That is not nice, amantha. So if you try to convince someone you are right and they are wrong, and they don't fall in line with you, then you have every right to call them names? Where I grew up, you never had the right to call anyone a name or insult them. If they wouldn't immediately fall down and lick your boots and tell you how smart you were, and now they believed, you didn't get to kick them. You shrugged your shoulders and walked away.

She said it herself, she has seen ALL the arguments against her church and they don't phase her at all. That's not normal, which obviates her state of willful blindness.

So, anyone who disagrees with you is abnormal? Moniker, do you want to jump here and defend me against a charge of abnormal?

There comes a time when kind words won't get the job done. You always hope that they will, but you must face the farce at some point. Beneficial revolutions have frequently required harshness and directness. We wish we could avoid them but history has shown that it is likely that we can't.

Sorry, amantha. No amount of harshness is going to change my mind. You have come up against the immoveable object here. I think that is something irritates the ex and anti-Mormons. The witness of the Spirit, which you do not accept of course, gives us a strength that you can't overcome.

My advice to you when you come up against someone like me, is realize that no amount of "harshness" on your part is going to change their minds. So, instead of coming off as mean and nasty yourself, just let them go their way and you go yours. When you engage in ridicule and derision, it just makes you look bad.


The revolution that needs to take place within Charity's heart and mind is not likely, but it is certain that discussing the probabilities and the "facts" aren't working and, almost certainly, never will. Some people are just too invested in their dogmas and their egos.

I will admit to being "invested" in my theology. I have been told by the Spirit that I am right. You don't agree. But how does your investment in your dogma and ego not equal mine? Actually, psychologically it does. If I were to take your words in this post and turn them around to be on you, they would be equally applicable. You are absolutely convinced you are right. No amount of reasoning is going to change your mind. You are invested in your dogma and ego.

But unlike you, I don't think you deserve derision and ridicule.

[Guest]

A few people have talked about charity 'presenting' herself a certain way.
...I - for one - think charity is presenting herself exactly how she is. And I - for one - respect that, regardless of any other concern.

She usually shows more constraint than many others in the opposite direction, which should also be in her credit.

All that said, I think some of her attitudes on certain issues are appalling. But then, she already knows that :) (Not that they are de facto appalling, but that I think so...)
I don't think how she 'says' things is cruel and intolerant. I think some of what she actually believes is cruel and intolerant.
There's a difference I suppose...

I'm sure there is similar criticism of many of my views in the opposite direction. And that's all fair. In love and war.

[_truth dancer]

I don't thnk of a message board as therapy group.

I only asked because of your comment in another thread when you called yourself a "mean therapist."

No judgements. Right.

Think what you will.. I am truly trying to understand you.

I will tell you what I really think here. I think I get some people in a snit because I won't back off. They think if they can yell and insult and drown me out I will go away and their errors won't be confronted and they will be more comfortable.

You confirm my earlier thought. You do not seem to see how YOU come across to others. I do not like the nastiness coming from anyone but I truly don't think you have identified the problem accurately.

I think some people have left the Church for reasons not associated with the truth or lack of it. They have learned somethng about the history or some other area that is a challenge Their intellects overwhelm them and they lose their testimonies. But deep down they still know its true.

I find this comment so very odd. I've heard this excuse from others as well. Could you give us some examples of folks who you feel might fit this description? Why do you think this? Is it so difficult to believe that people truly do NOT believe in the LDS church because it doesn't seem true or feel holy to them?

People who can maintain their faith with the same knowledge of these issues that they have, are a threat agaisnt them. They have to fight agaisnt me to maintain their "disbelief."

I think this statement says a lot about how you view your participation here. If I understand you correctly, you think people have to fight against you to maintain their belief? This is why some folks are unkind to you?

I think some people are put off because I express myself in absolutes. I very often say I "know" rather than I "believe" or I "think." These people are of the opinion that nobody can know anything (unless it is a scientific truth) so this makes me arrogant. But if you "know" something, it is disingenous to tone it down just to "play nice."

I agree with the idea that someone who thinks they know all truth, who is always right, who can't admit his or her mistakes, often comes across as arrogant.

I believe in accountability. I don't swallow the victim mentality. I frequently express the idea that people make choices and are responsible for those choices. This is very politically incorrect these days.

It is not that your black and white view of life is politically incorrect, it is that many believe there is more to the human story.

We all chose how and to whom we respond, and yes it is a matter of our own personalities. All people with psychology training and background are viewed suspiciously by those who think we can figure them out. This makes people defensive.

This is an interesting comment as well. I have considerable training and experience in this field and I have never felt people were defensive or viewed me suspiciously. I truly do not think anyone on this board is concerned with how you may view or judge them.

Would you care to explain your problem in conversing with me? Others can speak for themselves.

As I have viewed comments directed toward you, there seems to be a consistent problem. You misrepresent people, their opinions, and their statements. In addition, my personal challenge is when you present information that can potentially be harmful to others.

Thrive? I am still here in spite of the nastiness that has been thrown at me. I am still waiting for someone to point out nastiness on my part besides those two examples already mentioned. One of which was a mild throw off remark, and the other which is still up in the air until Moniker explains it.

Yes... the fact that you are still here is interesting to me. You do seem to enjoy the nastiness thrown your way and do not see that you also throw quite a bit of nastiness toward others.

Am I supposed to be accomplishing something here?

Nope.. just wondering.

If you do not think you are helping anyone, if you do not seem to be bringing people back to the church, if you do not seem to be helping people find or notice goodness in your church, it just makes me wonder why you find enjoyment here when you seem to often remark at how badly you are treated.

No need to answer I was just curious.

I thought and still think that message boards are really just entertainment. Are you trying to accomplish something here? What would that be?

Just having fun. However, I do not think I would enjoy it much if I couldn't have a pleasant conversation with my fellow board members.

Truth dancer, what I am wondering, and wish you would actually address, is what specifically I do that is mean and nasty. The dumb down remark is the only thing specifically (except for Moniker's problems with the adjustment of teenage girls following divorce which still mystifies my why she is so upset about that because she won't explain why).

So please, quote me a mean and nasty things I said.

YOU, stated you were a "mean therapist" which gave me the impression that at least to some degree you did recognize that you were not always kind on this board.

Charity... what good will it do to rehash your old comments? You will disagree that they are mean-spirited and on we go. I do not think there is a single thing I could post with which you would agree so we can just leave it at that.

You seem to be comfortable with the dynamics on this board so we can agree to disagree.

~dancer~

[_Gadianton]

I don't think Charity is that cruel all things considered. Whether it's intentional or not, and I haven't decided which yet, some of the extremely ignorant and silly TBM arguments she makes amplifies whatever bad behavior she's guilty of. For instance, when she argued that world hunger is a result of using grain for alcohol rather than food. It's hard to believe she's serious. But if so, simple ignorance is a part of simple bigotry. And then the whole situation is amplified yet again by the fact she calls herself "Charity". A good counterpart from the perspective of MAD might be, someone who registers as "MormonSeekingtruth" and then starts threads like, "Can Mormons be Christians when they don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible?"

When adjusting for the "annoying" factor, I think Charity comes out at about average for this board. I think I'm less civil than she is, for instance.

Then again, civility isn't a huge issue for me. Some of the strikingly uncivil apologists (and critics) I've always liked.

[_Ren]

I don't think Charity is that cruel all things considered. Whether it's intentional or not, and I haven't decided which yet, some of the extremely ignorant and silly TBM arguments she makes amplifies whatever bad behavior she's guilty of. For instance, when she argued that world hunger is a result of using grain for alcohol rather than food. It's hard to believe she's serious. But if so, simple ignorance is a part of simple bigotry. And then the whole situation is amplified yet again by the fact she calls herself "Charity". A good counterpart from the perspective of MAD might be, someone who registers as "MormonSeekingtruth" and then starts threads like, "Can Mormons be Christians when they don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible?"

When adjusting for the "annoying" factor, I think Charity comes out at about average for this board. I think I'm less civil than she is, for instance.

Then again, civility isn't a huge issue for me. Some of the strikingly uncivil apologists (and critics) I've always liked.

I pretty much agree with all of the above. I think 'some' of her beliefs can be catagorised as such - certainly not all, in some kind of 'all encompassing' way. Generally, I see no reason why she should be specifically singled out. I guess we're concentrating on an individual here because it's being disputed what the 'catagorisation' should be in this case. With others, it's maybe a little clearer cut either way...

[_beastie]

Oh, I absolutely agree that charity is just midline in terms of offensiveness and rudeness. The only reason she's being singled out is because she keeps trying to preach to the rest of us on this board. She chastises people for insulting others, and claims those insults mean the poster knows he/she has lost the argument. It's just silly to put yourself up on a pedastal in order to lecture others when everyone below the pedestal can peek underneath and see your dirty undies.

[_Ren]

Oh, I absolutely agree that charity is just midline in terms of offensiveness and rudeness. The only reason she's being singled out is because she keeps trying to preach to the rest of us on this board. She chastises people for insulting others, and claims those insults mean the poster knows he/she has lost the argument. It's just silly to put yourself up on a pedastal in order to lecture others when everyone below the pedestal can peek underneath and see your dirty undies.

Ahh yes - of course. That's the whole underlying reason for this discussion.
Yeap - I get ya...

[_GoodK]

Oh, I absolutely agree that charity is just midline in terms of offensiveness and rudeness. The only reason she's being singled out is because she keeps trying to preach to the rest of us on this board. She chastises people for insulting others, and claims those insults mean the poster knows he/she has lost the argument. It's just silly to put yourself up on a pedastal in order to lecture others when everyone below the pedestal can peek underneath and see your dirty undies.

eww.... bad visual image now forever engraved in my frontal love