John Larsen Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Because of the human factor. I suspect you will find the same, or similar behaviors virtually anytime someone is perceived as abandoning the "group", as it were. That you want to demonize the Church over typical human behavior seems to be a problem unto itself.At what point does the Church became responsible for the behavior of its members?My only point is not that it is systematic, but it happens often enough that it is endemic.
ttribe Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 At what point does the Church became responsible for the behavior of its members?My only point is not that it is systematic, but it happens often enough that it is endemic.At the point where the Church is TEACHING people to engage in such behaviors. In the meantime, you seem more than willing to invoke your "humanity" at will, but don't allow us the same privilege.Next time, BTW, I will reword my response to say "uniquely endemic".
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 ad hominem may be a logical fallacy, but it just feels right, doesn't it?I was actually being sarcastic. I meant that you did not need help at all. It's hard to convey sarcasm here.Honestly, no offense meant (this time!!)
juliann Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Fancy foot work trying to suggest that the only legitimate source of official pronouncement is the Ensign.One more time....CFR.
juliann Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 At what point does the Church became responsible for the behavior of its members?My only point is not that it is systematic, but it happens often enough that it is endemic.Third time. CFR
Calm Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 At what point does the Church became responsible for the behavior of its members?My only point is not that it is systematic, but it happens often enough that it is endemic.If you are making a claim that someone is damaging another, it seems appropriate that some sort of significant evidence is demonstrated because otherwise you just could be damaging another yourself through false claims.In this specific case, it seems responsible to provide evidence that it is the Church's doctrine, teachings, culture or something belonging to the Church that is causing an increase of behaviours above and beyond what is found in the outside culture. If you do not, you may be causing others to have an inaccurate view of the Church and its members and that may affect how others interact with them and could cause actual harm.If you are concern that Church members are harming those who disagree with them through their reactions to this disagreement, then I would think you would be concerned to avoid harming Church members by spreading possible falsehoods about them.
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 If you are concern that Church members are harming those who disagree with them through their reactions to this disagreement, then I would think you would be concerned to avoid harming Church members by spreading possible falsehoods about them.That would seem logical. Of course, John has been trying to explain why the metaphorical use of the term 'crawl' in reference to a perceived obstacle justifiably offends the sensibilities of the very same people who coined the terms 'mopologist,' 'morg,' 'morgbot,' 'sheeple,' 'dead dunking,' 'testiphony,' and 'love bombing,' just to name a few....
staccato Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Is there anyone here who thinks Holland is using the word "crawl" in a complementary manner?
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Is there anyone here who thinks Holland is using the word "crawl" in a complementary manner?I'm assuming you meant 'complimentary.' In that case, no, I don't. I think he used it in a metaphorical sense. When an obstacle is in one's way, crawling over/under/around it is what one does. I frequently go caving with my Young Men, and we spend a good bit of our time in caves crawling. When I'm crawling on my belly under a low wall, I don't feel like my behaviour is either complimentary or pejorative. It's simply what one does when there's an obstacle in one's way.But let's be totally ungenerous for a moment and presume that Elder Holland consciously hunted for and then utilised the most peforative verb he could find in the entire English language. In such a hypothetical situation, I'm still discombobulated by the demands of apostates who, having turned their backs on what we Latter-day Saints sincerely view as the most beautiful and valuable thing in the Universe, insist that we never say anything they might construe as hurting their feelings. Inevitably, I'm reminded of one of my extremely immature Young Men who frequently wags school. When his quorum advisor found out, he told him it was a mistake not to be taking advantage of his educational opportunities. In response, this Young Man threw a tantrum and complained that the advisor had hurt his feelings, and then we got a phone call from the histrionic mum informing us that we had no right whatsoever to encourage her son to attend school.
Avatar4321 Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I'm assuming you meant 'complimentary.' In that case, no, I don't. I think he used it in a metaphorical sense. When an obstacle is in one's way, crawling over/under/around it is what one does. I frequently go caving with my Young Men, and we spend a good bit of our time in caves crawling. When I'm crawling on my belly under a low wall, I don't feel like my behaviour is either complimentary or pejorative. It's simply what one does when there's an obstacle in one's way.But let's be totally ungenerous for a moment and presume that Elder Holland consciously hunted for and then utilised the most peforative verb he could find in the entire English language. In such a hypothetical situation, I'm still discombobulated by the demands of apostates who, having turned their backs on what we Latter-day Saints sincerely view as the most beautiful and valuable thing in the Universe, insist that we never say anything they might construe as hurting their feelings. Inevitably, I'm reminded of one of my extremely immature Young Men who frequently wags school. When his quorum advisor found out, he told him it was a mistake not to be taking advantage of his educational opportunities. In response, this Young Man threw a tantrum and complained that the advisor had hurt his feelings, and then we got a phone call from the histrionic mum informing us that we had no right whatsoever to encourage her son to attend school. excellent point, they go out of their way to disparage our faith and personal beliefs and expect us to speak so perfectly as to anticipate every one of their unreasonable insinuations that we are insulting them.
Redefined Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 excellent point, they go out of their way to disparage our faith and personal beliefs and expect us to speak so perfectly as to anticipate every one of their unreasonable insinuations that we are insulting them.As it was explained to me in this forum, to think that kindness is a general rule of thumb, would be an error. . . . as it is perfectly fine for another person to not extend kindness toward you.
lostindc Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Oh, you "liked [Elder] Holland's talk," did you?You liked it so much that you tried to undermine it with facile remarks about "a hint of desperation."And you even liked it so much that you trotted over to Shades's Sty -- a forum where, for obvious reasons, you feel much more at home -- and did your best to shred it, to a loud chorus of approving oinks.(And when called on it in this thread, you insisted upon the right to choose which face you wanted to talk out of when you were posting here; a right which I suppose you do have.)So tell us, John; how would you have responded to Elder Holland's talk if you didn't like it?Like that, perhaps?Regards,PahoranThis is a great point. John, which face are we going to see today, the one that posts on Shade's board or the one who is currently posting in this thread? At least be consistent, do not be the wolf in sheep's clothing.
ttribe Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 That would seem logical. Of course, John has been trying to explain why the metaphorical use of the term 'crawl' in reference to a perceived obstacle justifiably offends the sensibilities of the very same people who coined the terms 'mopologist,' 'morg,' 'morgbot,' 'sheeple,' 'dead dunking,' 'testiphony,' and 'love bombing,' just to name a few....Be careful Hamba...you wouldn't want to be "mean" and not let them have their freedom to disparage us at every turn, now would you?
John Larsen Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 This is a great point. John, which face are we going to see today, the one that posts on Shade's board or the one who is currently posting in this thread? At least be consistent, do not be the wolf in sheep's clothing.I don't believe I have two faces when posting, but when one posts here as a critic, one must be very cautious. Critics are often banned or suspended for minor infractions and the only way that I have survived is by wording things very, very carefully. For example, if you were a critic and saying exactly the same things you have been saying, you would have been tossed out on your ear.
John Larsen Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 If you are making a claim that someone is damaging another, it seems appropriate that some sort of significant evidence is demonstrated because otherwise you just could be damaging another yourself through false claims.In this specific case, it seems responsible to provide evidence that it is the Church's doctrine, teachings, culture or something belonging to the Church that is causing an increase of behaviours above and beyond what is found in the outside culture. If you do not, you may be causing others to have an inaccurate view of the Church and its members and that may affect how others interact with them and could cause actual harm.If you are concern that Church members are harming those who disagree with them through their reactions to this disagreement, then I would think you would be concerned to avoid harming Church members by spreading possible falsehoods about them.Which Church members have I spread possible falsehoods about?
John Larsen Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Third time. CFRThere are many organizations that chronicle the abuses of the Church. A google search will lead you to their front door. As the rules are yours, I believe you know that I can't link to them.
consiglieri Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 This is a great point. John, which face are we going to see today, the one that posts on Shade's board or the one who is currently posting in this thread? At least be consistent, do not be the wolf in sheep's clothing.I do not see John Larsen as a phony.I thought Elder Holland's talk was the best thing to hit general conference in a long time, and said so on the other board.John responded almost immediately that he liked it, too.Seems pretty consistent to me.All the Best!--Consiglieri
juliann Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 There are many organizations that chronicle the abuses of the Church. A google search will lead you to their front door. As the rules are yours, I believe you know that I can't link to them.Selective sob stories aren't documentation by anyone's definition. Fourth request for documentation of your outrageous and defamatory accusations.
John Larsen Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Selective sob stories aren't documentation by anyone's definition. Fourth request for documentation of your outrageous and defamatory accusations.But you keep dropping restriction. I can only use one magazine that has been published since 1971 and personal testimony doesn't count. Your CFR is a moving target.I have made outrageous comments but nothing defamatory. You are being inflammatory.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I don't believe I have two faces when posting, but when one posts here as a critic, one must be very cautious. Critics are often banned or suspended for minor infractions and the only way that I have survived is by wording things very, very carefully. Several days ago, I challenged you to defend on this board two specific claims you had made elsewhere about Joseph Smith's premonition that he would die a martyr's death in Carthage, those being that he "packed a pistol" and that he sent for the Nauvoo Legion to come rescue him. You refused to do so. I don't find it credible that you would be unable to make the attempt under the constraints of civility that are required here. Such claims, in the course of debate, might have been revealed as indefensible, but that's not the same thing as being provoked to board infractions.
Lightbearer Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Elder Holland's talk has generated more agitation and also more excitement than any talk in recent memory. I think he was inspired of the Lord to do this to "churn up" the stagnant waters. It reminds me of the talk that Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave in 1984 which is one of my favorites and how he referred to critics and Anti-Mormons and apostates who sought to spiritually "slaughter" the sheep:(Bruce R. McConkie,
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Elder Holland's talk has generated more agitation and also more excitement than any talk in recent memory. I think he was inspired of the Lord to do this to "churn up" the stagnant waters. It reminds me of the talk that Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave in 1984 which is one of my favorites and how he referred to critics and Anti-Mormons and apostates who sought to spiritually "slaughter" the sheep:The entire text is here: The Caravan Moves on Ever so often the Lord has to have some of His servants make the clarion call to wake up those who have been lulled into a false security and help them to understand that this is not a game we are playing, it is a battle for the souls of men. We fight to overcome Satan and his angels, we must declare His word and it must be shouted from the house tops. If it offends the devil and the ones engaged in his work then so be it. We cannot make a "peace treaty" with Lucifer or surrender our position. We must go on to victory!The "snapping dogs" metaphor is a favorite of mine. Thanks for the reminder of its source.It seems particularly appropriate in light of the very recent reaction to Elder Holland's talk.
Zakuska Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 The "snapping dogs" metaphor is a favorite of mine. Thanks for the reminder of its source.It seems particularly appropriate in light of the very recent reaction to Elder Holland's talk.I remember on my mission riding a bike and a dog came snapping at my heels. I put my foot out and he went "crawling" back yapping to the porch.LOL
John Larsen Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Several days ago, I challenged you to defend on this board two specific claims you had made elsewhere about the Joseph's premonition that he would die a martyr's death in Carthage, those being that he "packed a pistol" and that he sent for the Nauvoo Legion to come rescue him. You refused to do so. I don't find it credible that you would be unable to make the attempt under the constraints of civility that are required here. Such claims, in the course of debate, might have been revealed as indefensible, but that's not the same thing as being provoked to board infractions.Several days ago, I was involved in a thread on another board. Like all threads, that one has context and each post existed in suti among the other responses. . That board is public and the thread is open to anyone to participate. You rudely demanded that I drop what I was doing and reposition the entire debate over here so that you could have the privilege of participating in the conversation that I was holding with others. I invited to you come on in and join and that I would be happy to continue the discussion. You continued to insist that you would only have me defend my conversation over there on your terms over here. Your behavior on this point was boorish and childish. Also, your claims that critics are treated civilly here unfortunately doesn't always pass muster.
juliann Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Your behavior on this point was boorish and childish. Also, your claims that critics are treated civilly here unfortunately doesn't always pass muster.Anyone who not only refuses to document what they accuse of others of....and does it with juvenile taunts and tap dancing....is not likely to be treated like a king. It looks like you are refusing to document any of your claims at all. So all you are doing is taking up space. That doesn't pass muster here.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.