What is cruel and intolerant on this message board?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

the road to hana wrote:
I'd put it a different way. I'd say there are two different types of people who profess to be religious--those who are fear-based, and those who are love-based.

You tend to be more the former than the latter.


You are very, very wrong. I am the one here who says that everybody gets to be happy in Heaven. Where is the fear in that?

So, would you please tell me what makes you think I am fear based?

Oh, by the way. There are only two types of people in the world--those who divide everything into two's, and those who don't. :)
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

beastie wrote:
The difference is in battle tactics. We teach the truth as we see it. Anyone who wants to believe can chose to join. Others teach hatred. There are whole mnistries who aren't FOR anything, but only AGAINST Mormons. That is what is hateful. I don't stand out on street corners and call people Satan's minions. 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.


Nonsense. They are FOR Mormons, and others, being "saved". They make that abundantly clear in their materials. And they would say they aren't teaching anyone to hate Mormons, but rather to hate the system of beliefs that has entrapped them and will lead them to hell.

And, by the way, the truth you teach includes some pretty hateful teachings from Joseph Smith about other churches.

But this is a conversation that is pointless. I've had it with other believers many times. LDS believers* simply cannot conceive that THEY may be perceived as teaching negative things about other faiths (I mean, simply teaching that other churches don't have the right authority to perform saving ordinances is just the "truth", not something negative, right?), and they simply cannot conceive that the actions of EVs that seem so hateful to them might actually be based on anxiety over the salvation of others.

*some LDS, of course, do understand this, I'm speaking in generalities


I'm willing to let behaviors speak for themselves. Quietly holding up a sign on a street corner near the Conference Center is one thing. Yelling at a teenage boy that he is just a Mormon because he wants to have lots of sex is something else again. That happened to my grandson. But you are right. We are going to keep sending out missionaries with our message and other are going to send out their missionaries with their message.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: What is cruel and intolerant on this message board?

Post by _Sethbag »

charity wrote:Since their sexual activities are not motivated by love or even sexual need, but by a need to establish a father relationship, this is neurotic. This is value neutral. (A neurosis is a relatively mild personality disorder typified by some degree of social or interpersonal maladjustment.) There is no moral statement made or implied.

Then I said that if a person is making a decision to engage in a sexual relationship driven by a neurosis, that takes away their ability to give consent. Sexual intercourse without consent is rape.

I'm curious whether you'd classify as rape the sexual relationships entered into by the young girls who "married" Joseph Smith without love or even sexual need, but rather as a result of emotional or spiritual coersion?

Somehow I rather doubt it. Ok, so women who engage in lots of sex with different partners often do so because their fathers left them and they need to establish a "father" relationship. Who left Joseph Smith, and what need did that engender within him that he felt compelled to "marry" and have sex with several dozen women in the span of just two to four years?

Oh, that's right, it wasn't neurosis - it was the voices in his head "commanding" him to do it. Gotcha.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Charity,

Just wondering....

Do you think you "help" people on this board?

Do you think you are a good representative of the LDS church?

Do you think GBH or Christ would be happy with your behavior here?

Do you think you offer some insight that would get people here to view your church in a more pleasant or healthy light?

I'm really curious about this... not making any judgments just wondering how you view yourself.

Can you step back long enough to look at your presence here and question if YOU have something to do with the responses you receive?

My observation is that you think it is FINE for YOU to be nasty and "mean" and if anyone responds negatively to you, you consider it their neurosis/personality/faulty beliefs/whatever, but if others are not kind to you, you seem to think it has nothing to do with YOU but is again their neurosis/personality/faulty beliefs/whatever.

I have the sense you truly cannot understand the problems many have conversing with you.

You seem to thrive on giving and receiving nastiness. What are you trying to accomlish? I'm curious about it.

~dancer~


Just to be clear, I am not suggesting you shouldn't be here but just asking you to observe your own behavior here.
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I'm willing to let behaviors speak for themselves. Quietly holding up a sign on a street corner near the Conference Center is one thing. Yelling at a teenage boy that he is just a Mormon because he wants to have lots of sex is something else again. That happened to my grandson. But you are right. We are going to keep sending out missionaries with our message and other are going to send out their missionaries with their message.


Yes, I know that it's all about how the message is conveyed. As long as you're quiet and polite, it's a-ok to assert whatever you want to about other people's religions when you knock on their door. Believe me, Charity, people on the other side of the door immediately recognize the criticism, no matter how politely you phrase it.

Besides, I'm betting these EVs would use the same reference I've seen some flagrantly rude LDS use - Christ and the money changers in the temple. Sometimes yelling and aggressiveness is justified under the Christian theology.

by the way, please don't interpret these comments to mean that I approve of that type of behavior. I don't. I'm trying to show you that the people who demonstrate this sort of behavior usually genuinely believe they are doing God's will, and yet you still assert that they are Satan's minions.

So if someone can be Satan's minions while still fervently believing one is doing God's will, maybe the EVs are right and the Mormons are satan's minions.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

beastie wrote:
Interesting also that the fact that a female may simply like sex, and that results in multiple partners, is unimaginable.



This of course appears to be something quite different from the viewpoint that sex is to be reserved for marriage. Exclusively.


What does that have to do with psychological training? Did you get your psych background from a college that taught sex is reserved for marriage, that somehow connected that teaching to the "nuts and sluts" course?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Did you read the word "snipe?" Lots of things are said in conversations which if youy take only the word, you get an insult out of it. There is repartee, you know. And in the context I was not calling you dumb. We do have a problem on a message board where we can't see faces and hear tones of voices. Things said lightly are perceived differently if we can see the person. That is one of the reasons why I lobbied for the use of smilies. Smilies do to a written message what facial expression and tone of voice can do to an oral one.

beastie, I did not mean you were dumb, an idiot or a moron. Good grief, you have your own website! I think you are probably very intelligent. Okay now?

Just to be clear, if I were serious when I told a person I would dumb down or use shorter syllables, that would be insulting. I was not serious.


I thought your original justification was that if it's the truth, it's not an insult??

And yes, you were calling me dumb. And no, I never took it seriously because I'm obviously not dumb, and have never thought I was dumb. The reality is that you were angry and you insulted me out anger. The subsequent reality is that you can't bring yourself to admit it. That's the only thing I want you to admit, Charity. That you, like others here, sometimes get piqued and say insulting, rude things, and sometimes attack the person. Your justifications for doing so are no more valid or less valid than the justifications any of the rest of us have.

You know there is only one reason I refer to this - because you repeatedly keep setting yourself up as some sort of "holier than thou" poster on the board. Now, I have no problem with people who ask for polite behavior and criticize rudeness as long as they are not hypocritically ignoring their own rude behavior and insults. There are a couple of posters here who almost never insult or attack (runtu immediately comes to mind). No one is going to attack them for hypocrisy when they ask for better behavior. But you are a different matter. You criticize people for insulting others and attacking others, and even insinuate this means that they've lost the argument and know it. Yet you repeatedly engage in the behavior yourself - here and on MAD. Yet I'm betting each time you insulted or attacked someone, you didn't think you had lost the argument.

Posting on the internet, particularly about religion, always has the potential to bring out strong feelings and less inhibition to express those feelings. And yes, it's hard to always accurately "read" a person from type alone. These are some of the costs of this type of communication. My point is that you, Charity, are just as susceptible to this as any of the rest of us, and you better remember that the next time you preach to the board about bad behavior. And remember, cloaking your insults in religious theology does not make it any less of an insult - in fact, it makes it worse, because you're also claiming GOD would agree with the insult.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

You are very, very wrong. I am the one here who says that everybody gets to be happy in Heaven. Where is the fear in that?

So, would you please tell me what makes you think I am fear based?


That isn't Mormonism. That is closer to Daniel Petersonism. Dan has admittedly been flirtatious with Universalism and his followers at MADB gradually accept his understanding of the gospel uncritically as they do everything else. Joseph Smith was no Universalist. Mormonism has never had a problem condemning others. From blacks who were rebellious in the preexistence to the unfaithful who don't avoid burning by paying their tithes, er, "fire insurance."
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

You are very, very wrong. I am the one here who says that everybody gets to be happy in Heaven. Where is the fear in that?


Hold the phone Charity...

In another conversation you first stated that we each get what we want.

I responded that I thought this would be a fabulous heaven... if everyone got what they wanted for eternity.

You then changed your position and stated that no, we make choices here that result in consequences in the next life.

So... if what will make me happy in heaven is to be with my loved ones, friends, and family for eternity without being sealed or having to be a part of Joseph Smith & Co., then will this be my heaven?

Not if one believes LDS teachings. (Unless of course you are still going with the idea that we all change in the next life and we won't WANT to be with loved ones in heaven or some such nonsense as this... you know, the good will seem bad and the bad will seem good once you get to the other side).

You use fear when you (and the LDS church) claim that one will not be with their family in heaven unless they believe in Joseph Smith and partake of his doctrine/teachings/rituals/ceremonies/practices.

Do you see how this teaching is fear based?

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

truth dancer wrote:Charity,

Just wondering....

Do you think you "help" people on this board?

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

Do you think you are a good representative of the LDS church?

Yes.

Do you think GBH or Christ would be happy with your behavior here?

I don't think President Hinckley would have a problem with it. I am pretty solid on doctrine. I have a good grasp of the history. My posting tone is pretty straight forward. I could be open for criticism because I waste time here. There are probably many other activities that would actually be of use and value and a better allocation of my time.


Do you think you offer some insight that would get people here to view your church in a more pleasant or healthy light?

I think most people here are resistant to seeing the Church in a pleasant or healthy light. I am here to shine the light on falsehoods and inaccuracies and misrepresentations. These errors can be put out there, but they will at least be refuted. Whether that refutation is accepted or not.

I'm really curious about this... not making any judgments just wondering how you view yourself.

No judgements. Right.

Can you step back long enough to look at your presence here and question if YOU have something to do with the responses you receive?

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.

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. 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 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 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.


My observation is that you think it is FINE for YOU to be nasty and "mean" and if anyone responds negatively to you, you consider it their neurosis/personality/faulty beliefs/whatever, but if others are not kind to you, you seem to think it has nothing to do with YOU but is again their neurosis/personality/faulty beliefs/whatever.

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
.

I have the sense you truly cannot understand the problems many have conversing with you.


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


You seem to thrive on giving and receiving nastiness. What are you trying to accomlish? I'm curious about it.

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.



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

~dancer~


Just to be clear, I am not suggesting you shouldn't be here but just asking you to observe your own behavior here.

[color=blue]
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.

This might be perceived as mean and nasty, but it has occurred to me that the criticism I get is a calculated attempt to poison the well. If a charge is made agaisnt me that I am mean and nasty then the gullible will begin to read mean and nasty into what really isn't.
[/color]~dancer~
Post Reply