Buffalo wrote:The OP in that thread wasn't condemned? How about some balance from you, Stem? You've been pretty off balance lately.
In that thread, which seems to have disappeared, I quickly thanked those who condemned it, as I condemned it too. Keep in mind it was supported by others.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
I rarely make such judgements. But BC has a pattern of blithely dismissing the real life experiences of other humans that were likely just as faithful LDSers as he is. He does the same thing when discussing sticky LDS teachings from the past as simply not official when it is simply obvious that the LDS leaders that taught these things believed they were true.
As I said, I'd have no comment at all if there were balance.
And I understand BC and how he is better than you might think. I used to be much like him. I said many of the same things he does when I was a defender. I dimissed so much as not official and some leaders opinion and so on. I often dismissed what others said as lies or some abberition as BC does here.
I am sure you know the story of The Emporeres New Clothes. Admitting that some things may not be well in Zion is risky business. Once you do this it is more and more easy to realize that in lots of ways the Church has many areas where it really had no clothes. But members are culturally conditioned to be like the Emporeres subjects who all gushed and gave accolades about his new clothes that simply did exist. Admitting that there may be no clothes may put one on a path that is had to turn back from. BC just cannot admit even in one instance that the clothes may be even a bit dirty let alone non existent. He knows if he does it may all fall apart.
Carry on as you were. I simply don't appreciate a lack of balance. Its as if all the critics get free passes while personal perceptions of LDS posters play the heart as condemnations are throw at LDS.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:The OP in that thread wasn't condemned? How about some balance from you, Stem? You've been pretty off balance lately.
In that thread, which seems to have disappeared, I quickly thanked those who condemned it, as I condemned it too. Keep in mind it was supported by others.
Yes, and then you acted like it was never condemned here, because pretending like it didn't supports your "this board is so unfair!" narrative.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
liz3564 wrote:You obviously haven't read many of Jason's posts. Jason is LDS, and a very respected LDS poster. He is also a former bishop. If anyone has a right to speak to BC about this issue, it's Jason.
BC is the one being overly judgemental.
I've read a number of Jason's posts. I do see he is a good person, if that's what you're saying. He's come after me a time or two for perceptions (mistaken perceptions, no less) about me, though. Although he might have balance, I don't see it in this thread. For when its obvious to me that there are posters here who try their best to attack LDS posters, like Mattie, as this thread demonstrates, he instead goes after BCSpace with no effort at balance. Its confusing to me, so I must say something.
Mattie was apologized to. But here you are, with your double standard, crying about bcspace! Pep pep! How about some balance?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote: Carry on as you were. I simply don't appreciate a lack of balance. Its as if all the critics get free passes while personal perceptions of LDS posters play the heart as condemnations are throw at LDS.
Stem, why is it that your tendency is to give defenders a free pass, but condemn critics?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
As you note there is no way to know ratio without a statistical example. But the handbook in use when I was bishop gave no specific guidance on what to say and ask when interviewing a youth and what not to. I figures TR questions and or Strength of Youth booklet were basis for discussions I had with youth.
Interesting. Thanks. Was it the same for the three-month period of abstinence that some bishops insisted on before sending in mission papers?
Buffalo wrote:Yes, and then you acted like it was never condemned here, because pretending like it didn't supports your "this board is so unfair!" narrative.
No. I didn't act like it was never condemned. It surely was by a few posters. As I recall, MrStak, you, MsJack, and FenceSitter. thanks.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Yes, and then you acted like it was never condemned here, because pretending like it didn't supports your "this board is so unfair!" narrative.
No. I didn't act like it was never condemned. It surely was by a few posters. As I recall, MrStak, you, MsJack, and FenceSitter. thanks.
Have you ever supported LDS critics when it is obvious the LDS defender has said something false? I never see balance from you Stem.
Buffalo wrote:Yes, and then you acted like it was never condemned here, because pretending like it didn't supports your "this board is so unfair!" narrative.
No. I didn't act like it was never condemned. It surely was by a few posters. As I recall, MrStak, you, MsJack, and FenceSitter. thanks.
You acted like it was never condemned until I brought it up. Fess up, Mr. Stem.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.