Good Lord

[_wenglund]

I suppose that people are entitled to be a shallow in their judgements as suits their own purposes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why do you insist on taking disagreement and turning into personal attack?

I've never understood that about you. But at least you are consistent.

I understand the ironic sensitivity that certain critics may have to their being criticized. But, why do you always hate me for simply pointing out things like your judgement of the Church (as Amway-like) was shallow?

It is not "shallow" to express what someone has concluded after more than forty years within an organization. There's no "purpose" behind such a conclusion, either.

In this case, the shallowness of your judgment was not a function of time spent in the Church, but rather it was shallow on its own merits (or lack thereof).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_silentkid]

OK, I would genuinely like to know. What were his great achievements?

He signed my mission call.

Why is it that pejorative stereotypes regarding intellect (like the one above) tend not to be voiced by the brightest stars in the human constilation?

Irony?

LMAO!

[_wenglund]

I suppose that people are entitled to be a shallow in their judgements as suits their own purposes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sort of like your disgusting, condescending and bigoted behavior at Temple Square not that long ago?

Hmmm...I held up a sign expressing gratitude to the Church for protecting families, societies, and children, and smiled and waved hello to people as they hurled insults at me and my faith, and somehow you concluded that I was the one being "disgusting, condescending and bigoted"? Interesting!!--and made all the more so in light of Runtu's quip about my supposed intent in turning a disagreement into a personal attack.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_cinepro]

For me, one useful way to judge the "value" of the movie (and by extension, President Hinckley's affect upon the world) would be to see how much interest there is in this movie outside the Church.

Obviously, LDS think he was the most loving, caring, Christ-like man alive while he was prophet, and thus a movie showing his life experiences leading up to that call would be fascinating.

I do think LDS need to be aware of the dangers of "hero-worship", or a tendency to form a personality-cult. It's good to have respect for our leaders (or any honorable religious leader for that matter), but it can go a little too far.

[_wenglund]

For me, one useful way to judge the "value" of the movie (and by extension, President Hinckley's affect upon the world) would be to see how much interest there is in this movie outside the Church.

Obviously, LDS think he was the most loving, caring, Christ-like man alive while he was prophet, and thus a movie showing his life experiences leading up to that call would be fascinating.

I do think LDS need to be aware of the dangers of "hero-worship", or a tendency to form a personality-cult. It's good to have respect for our leaders (or any honorable religious leader for that matter), but it can go a little too far.

Things can go "too far" in either direction (hero-worship or demonizing). The question is, how does one gauge whether sentiments about certain people are healthy or go "too far"? What is the means of measurement and assessment?

I have my own ideas in answer to those questions, but I am curious to hear what you and others may have to say.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sethbag]

OK, I would genuinely like to know. What were his great achievements?

He signed my mission call.

Sadly, I would bet he didn't even do that. I still remember the very minor scandal when my brother broke it to me that apparently his mission call signature had been duplicated by a machine. When I was in the MTC, several of us broke our call letters out and, sure enough, the signatures were exactly the same, down to the last little mistake. Oh well.

[_Scottie]

I suppose that people are entitled to be a shallow in their judgements as suits their own purposes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wade, we are no longer tolerating personal attacks on this board. You are under the grace period, but as of tomorrow, this post of yours would be deleted. Attack the argument, not the poster.]

[_wenglund]

I suppose that people are entitled to be a shallow in their judgements as suits their own purposes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wade, we are no longer tolerating personal attacks on this board. You are under the grace period, but as of tomorrow, this post of yours would be deleted. Attack the argument, not the poster.]

But, I simply assessed (not to be confused with "attacked") the depth (or lack thereof) of Runtu's argument (i.e. his "judgement" of the Church). Is that not allowed? Why is that subject to censor?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Hmmm...I held up a sign expressing gratitude to the Church for protecting families, societies, and children, and smiled and waved hello to people as they hurled insults at me and my faith, and somehow you concluded that I was the one being "disgusting, condescending and bigoted"? Interesting!!--and made all the more so in light of Runtu's quip about my supposed intent in turning a disagreement into a personal attack.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Baloney, Wade. Your "smiling" and "waving" was clearly condescending and bigoted. In your even more appalling MAD post, you carried on at length about how you thought the pro-gay-marriage people were "bizarre," and you stated that you wanted to hand out "leftover Halloween candy." This is the very height of bigotry, particularly in light of your CSSAD history.

[_Brackite]

Baloney, Wade. Your "smiling" and "waving" was clearly condescending and bigoted. In your even more appalling MAD post, you carried on at length about how you thought the pro-gay-marriage people were "bizarre," and you stated that you wanted to hand out "leftover Halloween candy." This is the very height of bigotry, particularly in light of your CSSAD history.

Hello, Mister Scratch,

Question Here:

What does the Abbreviations CSSAD exactly stand for?

Thanks, Mister Scratch!.