Its been fun today

[_stemelbow]

oh brother...it appears i opened another chapter in the Why Me vs MsJack pissing match. Oops. I guess we all make mistakes.

[_MsJack]

Actually there hasn't been much interest about the topic at all. Just a couple of posters responded.

Likely the reason there hasn't been much interest in the topic is because the others who have clicked on it felt that those few who responded did an adequate job answering such a banal question.

I don't think that in the scheme of things, it is not very important. No one really cares. The point is: there is nothing wrong with marrying in the chapel.

Au contraire, there is something wrong with it. It's against the commandment to marry in the temple, and those who do so will be deprived of the "blessings" of a sealing and having their children born in the covenant:

Now ask the young women to list reasons that young people give for wanting to be married in the temple. Some of these reasons are given below. Quickly consider each of these along with any other reasons class members may give.

• 1. It is a commandment of God.
  
• 2. Heavenly Father has promised many blessings to those who marry in his house and live according to the covenants made there.
  
• 3. It is the only way to have a husband and wife and family together in the hereafter.
  
• 4. It can allow us to dwell in the presence of God, in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom.
  
• 5. The parents have taught and wish for a temple marriage for their children.
  
• 6. Friends are being married in the temple.
  
• 7. The couple love each other so much they want to be together forever.
  
• 8. Each partner can know the other partner values the gospel.
  
• 9. Each partner can be assured the other partner is chaste and virtuous.

But it was a nice attempt at shifting the goalposts just the same, why me.

stemelbow ~ I told you in no uncertain terms on the other thread that I wanted none of your time and didn't think you had anything to offer me. Instead of just accepting that and stopping, you had to go and roll an entirely new thread making a desperate plea for me to pay attention to you, for no other reason than that you think you know better than me who is worth my time. Sounded like mansplainin' to me.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the one who initiated hostilities on the other thread by telling me that my response was "fail" and sneering at my knowledge of things LDS. I politely informed you that I thought you were being rude, and you dismissed my feelings there as well. Now you've compounded your disrespect by calling me "stupid." And yet you still see yourself as the picked on instead of the picker.

This is why I don't enjoy interacting with you. You don't make an honest attempt at understanding others, you dismiss their issues and concerns without really listening, and you do it all the while whining about how mean other people are. None of those are traits that I value in dialogue partners. If you want my disinterest in you to change, you're the one who needs to change.

[_why me]

Why Me,

Just for clarity:

Is temple marriage a commandment?
Yes [ ]
No. [ ]
(tick the one that applies)

No. Certainly not a commandment as implied by MsJack. For MsJack, getting married in the temple is a commandment which is why her and her husband chose a protestant marriage. But she could have had a chapel marriage and leave it at that. No problem.

[_just me]

As far as I'm concerned, you're the one who initiated hostilities on the other thread by telling me that my response was "fail" and sneering at my knowledge of things LDS. I politely informed you that I thought you were being rude, and you dismissed my feelings there as well. Now you've compounded your disrespect by calling me "stupid." And yet you still see yourself as the picked on instead of the picker.

This is why I don't enjoy interacting with you. You don't make an honest attempt at understanding others, you dismiss their issues and concerns without really listening, and you do it all the while whining about how mean other people are. None of those are traits that I value in dialogue partners. If you want my disinterest in you to change, you're the one who needs to change.

Quoted for truth.

[_stemelbow]

stemelbow ~ I told you in no uncertain terms on the other thread that I wanted none of your time and didn't think you had anything to offer me. Instead of just accepting that and stopping, you had to go and roll an entirely new thread making a desperate plea for me to pay attention to you, for no other reason than that you think you know better than me who is worth my time. Sounded like mansplainin' to me.

I didn't plea for anything from you. I merely mentioned how you responded to me yesterday. It was pathetic if you ask me. I don't care if you pay attention to me or not. And no, offering you feedback by suggesting there are poeple out there who are probably worth your time, even if you shut them out, isn't mansplainin'. It has nothing to do with gender in fact. let's not get all absurd again.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the one who initiated hostilities on the other thread by telling me that my response was "fail" and sneering at my knowledge of things LDS.

What? I posted one comment about how you failed in your analysis. There can't seriously be anything hostile in that. We all have things to learn and we all disagree with each other at some point. I'm baffled that you care to turn mere disagreements in hostiliity, and advice into some sexist rant. I know you have your partners and people will jump on board with you on this. I know how people respond here. But rest assured just because you get some backing here does not mean you've made a good cogent case. You haven't. I've never treated you differently because your a woman. I have never made it a point to talk down to you because you're a woman. I merely offered you some pretty tame advice, in the face of your hostilities.

I politely informed you that I thought you were being rude, and you dismissed my feelings there as well. Now you've compounded your disrespect by calling me "stupid." And yet you still see yourself as the picked on instead of the picker.

Its not that I'm picked on at all. Its that the tone of respect showed in your responses to me is pretty poor. Its not very conducive to civil productive dialogue in my eyes. And I maintain its not rude to say I disagree with you on something. Its probably closer to rude to take someone's opinion like that and treat it as though I'm being rude, but what does that matter?

This is why I don't enjoy interacting with you. You don't make an honest attempt at understanding others, you dismiss their issues and concerns without really listening, and you do it all the while whining about how mean other people are. None of those are traits that I value in dialogue partners. If you want my disinterest in you to change, you're the one who needs to change.

I'm more than willing to change the weaknesses I have. But I truly think you aren't seeing this very clearly. You are prone to see it as "stem is bad" and are unwilling to realize the cause of it all. Oh well. I can still attempt to understand you, even if you look down on me to the point of thinking me not worth your time.

[_stemelbow]

Quoted for truth.

lol. Sorry, Just Me, but there was very little truth in there. Do you really think I offered advice to MsJack because I look down on her as a woman? I'm quite astounded that lengths some posters will go to in their hostile efforts to attack others. Your agreement on this is not good news to me.

[_Buffalo]

No. Certainly not a commandment as implied by MsJack. For MsJack, getting married in the temple is a commandment which is why her and her husband chose a protestant marriage. But she could have had a chapel marriage and leave it at that. No problem.

All the TBMs at MAD disagree.

[_just me]

Quoted for truth.

lol. Sorry, Just Me, but there was very little truth in there. Do you really think I offered advice to MsJack because I look down on her as a woman? I'm quite astounded that lengths some posters will go to in their hostile efforts to attack others. Your agreement on this is not good news to me.

Um, go back and read the section I quoted. Nothing about womanness or manness in it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm shocked at your hostility and viciousness, stemelbow. You seem genuinely unhinged lately. I seem to recall you saying that you're currently unemployed. Perhaps your in real life troubles are beginning to find their way into your posts?

[_stemelbow]

Um, go back and read the section I quoted. Nothing about womanness or manness in it.

That's good.

but I still find your agreement with her falsehoods troublesome.

Let me summarize the way I see it.

MsJack took issue with the Church's "I"m a Mormon" campaign, and in doing so suggested her husband should have a spot.

I said cool.

She went on to tell me why the Church has that campaign.

I said I disagreed, in no uncertain terms.

She said I was just being rude.

I responded by saying I didn't intend to be rude, but she could take my comments as helpful feedback or ignore them if she liked.

She then proceeded to tell me how bad I am, that I'm not worth responding to and that I have nothing to offer at all.

I chuckled at the notion she offered and asked her to reconsider--that humans in general have plenty to offer each other, but it often does take a great deal of love, patience, sincere listening to get benefit.

She responded with some more hosility.

I started this thread to sum up what I perceived as an uneventful day here.

She responded by saying this is all about me and she got treated worse than I did, and I just do this for my ego or something.

I disagreed.

She then responded by suggesting I am looking down on her because she's a woman, and that I called her stupid (which I didn't).

You then agreed with her--but not the I'm after her because I'm a man and she's a woman part.

I personally don't get it, but if we can all stick to our own sides, then cool, I suppose.