Mudcat Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 I think people need to be more careful what they say in public places. I was in a discussion group with a bunch of Methodists when they started talking down about the Mormons. I said "Before anyone says anything else you should know I am a Mormon." Silence for a moment and then the subject was changed. It showed me how a person's perspective can change when they actually know someone who is part of that group against whom they have so much bias.Thanks for sharing that Deborah.As I was thinking about it, I wondered how I would have handled that situation if I were an LDS. I really don't know, for some reason I think it would have changed the dynamic.But I think the way you handled that situation is a great "how to" example.
CQUIRK Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) I commend you, Mudcat, you did the right thing and acted in the right manner- you did not overreact in any way.Heck, I would have been more direct with the guy and not bother to pull him aside. Edited October 31, 2011 by CQUIRK
diglot Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) Mudcat...I'd say you handled that situation very admirably.I hope I would have done the same thing if I was in your shoes. Edited November 1, 2011 by diglot
Log Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Um. What, exactly, are we congratulating? The fact that he got angry, or the fact that he refrained from assaulting the pastor?
BCSpace Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) A perfect opportunity to debate religion and point out how he belongs to the church of the Devil! In an analogous experience I had, I once took a young gentleman aside at a church activity and reminded him that I knew where he lived and that if I ever caught him trying to see my daughter, I'd not hesitate to track him down and kill him. I only half regreted it later. Edited November 1, 2011 by BCSpace
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 I think people need to be more careful what they say in public places. I was in a discussion group with a bunch of Methodists when they started talking down about the Mormons. I said "Before anyone says anything else you should know I am a Mormon." Silence for a moment and then the subject was changed. It showed me how a person's perspective can change when they actually know someone who is part of that group against whom they have so much bias.At another time I was in a restaurant with my Mom and a bunch of young people behind us were talking about the Mormons. My mom could see me getting excited and begged me not to make a scene. They had been specifically talking about how we don't believe the Bible. This happened to be at the time the church was coming out with it's very detailed and highly praised footnoted edition of the Bible. I wrote my testimony on a napkin, expressing my love for the Bible and how much it is part of Mormon belief. As Mom and I left I dropped the napkin on their table. We could see them in the window reading the note and discussing it. My hope was that at least one person in the group would realize they shouldn't believe everything they are told and would be more careful of judging others in the future.When my youngest daughter was around 5 or 6 her Dad was trying to get her to want to live with him. He told her "Where you live are all these Mexicans" in that tone saying how awful they are. When Diana told me this I said to her, "You know Maria, your best friend?" She said "Yes..." I said "She's Mexican." She said "She is?" Of course she realized then that there was nothing wrong with Mexicans.So MC, I appreciate your defense of both Catholics and Mormons. People often say thing without thinking based on prejudices they have been taught. We need to be more careful in our judgements. What is sad is when children are so indoctrinated with prejudices.You show great poise.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 the fact that he refrained from assaulting the pastor?
thesometimesaint Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Log:Technically speaking the second Mudcat put his hand on the pastor it was assault and battery. It was still a good thing to do.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Log:Technically speaking the second Mudcat put his hand on the pastor it was assault and battery. It was still a good thing to do.The laying on of hands is a correct gospel principle.
thesometimesaint Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Pa Pa:So is loving your neighbor. Just don't let her huband find out.
Log Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Log:Technically speaking the second Mudcat put his hand on the pastor it was assault and battery. It was still a good thing to do.I think Mudcat understands that this was not a good thing. That's the overall read I get from the OP, and why I'm confused about all the backslapping going on about it.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 I think Mudcat understands that this was not a good thing. That's the overall read I get from the OP, and why I'm confused about all the backslapping going on about it.There is no backslapping, we just think he is being to hard on himself. He is a husband who's wife was insulted, along with friends, attending the funeral of a friend. I think you are getting the wrong read on this one.
LeSellers Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) Technically speaking the second Mudcat put his hand on the pastor it was assault and battery. It was still a good thing to do.Not quite.I wasn't there, so I can't say in this case, but "assault" requires that the person be in fear of harm. From what Jason said, he did not threaten the pastor.Battery is also a very precise term, and it requires something other than "social" touching. It is not battery, for instance, to shake hands. Putting one's arm around another person's shoulders is common "social touching" in most cases, so I doubt it would qualify here, either.criminal lawa threat of attack to another person followed by actual attack, which need amount only to touching with hostile intentLehiP.S.: I'm not a lawyer, but I saw one on TV. LS Edited November 1, 2011 by LeSellers
diglot Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Um. What, exactly, are we congratulating? The fact that he got angry, or the fact that he refrained from assaulting the pastor?There is such a thing as righteous anger IMO.I can't remember reading anything in the OP that seemed out of line on Mudcat's part. I think he handled it quite well. What is it that you disagree with in how he handled it?
rpn Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Mudcat, I so hope you will come back and tell us what happens when you go and apologize to the man for what you perceive you did wrong (and presumably thank him for removing himself, though he may be kicking himself for not standing up enough). It will be interesting to know his perspective on what happened.
DarkScythe Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 but correcting the stupidity of others is an honorable thing. He was in the right.
rpn Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 It is hard for me to determine whether or not he was in the right, and he has said here he doesn't' think he was. I don't have any opinion on whether or not he was, though I am grateful he stood up for the belief of others. But I still am interested in the pastors perception of what happened.
Anijen Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 All this praise for my buddy Mudcat, phhpft... Man there you go doing something really cool.Well, I have had enough of your good works young man , you slacker, you two bit, four flushing, dirty rotten scoundrel... There, I feel better already, oops there I go not biting my tongue again. Arrgh!
ERayR Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 It is hard for me to determine whether or not he was in the right, and he has said here he doesn't' think he was. I don't have any opinion on whether or not he was, though I am grateful he stood up for the belief of others. But I still am interested in the pastors perception of what happened.Standing up to bigotry is always right. 4
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Standing up to bigotry is always right.Agree...it is never wrong to stand for what is right. God may not judge us based on the outcome of doing what is right, but he will judge us for not doing what we know to be right. The outcome belongs to him; the battle is ours. I once stopped and got out of my car because a man was beating his girlfriend, live or die...it was going to stop. The two men who just jogged on by, I feel sorry for. When he turned his attention to me, she jumped in his car a drove away. I then got in my car and left him there and called the police. But one way or the other it was going to stop!
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Lehi:The second MC approached the pastor that is the threat(Assault), and touching him is the Battery. As for practical matters, as no physical damage was reported it would be a good bet that no prosecutor would file charges.We have a couple of lawyers in our Ward. So I see them every week.
emeliza Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) I think it is good to pull the pastor aside so that he knew he was possibly offending people, especially since it was a place where emotions were already at their limit. I would guess with the pastor's youth (not age so much as inexperience), he still is under the believe that all good people will think the same as him. However we know as we get older, there are many of our close friends that we do not agree with it and doesn't change how we feel about them.However I think the anger felt is not a good thing and was probably a lot due to the stress of the situation and that the comments could offend those already suffering from the loss of a loved one.Edit: That being said, I don't think MC was over the top and it was fine in the end. A friendly gesture towards the pastor would probably go a long way in making sure he knows that he don't have ill will towards him. Edited November 2, 2011 by emeliza
LeSellers Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 The second MC approached the pastor that is the threat(Assault), and touching him is the Battery. As for practical matters, as no physical damage was reported it would be a good bet that no prosecutor would file charges.If the approach was threatening, perhaps, but there is nothigni in Mud;s story that leads one to believe there was anything threatening about it. Every time someone approaches any other person, if I understand your allegation correctly, it is at least potentially assualt. That's very unlikely, even in today's litigious world.Battery requires something more than "social touching". Putting one's arm around someone's shoulders is commonly thought of as "social touching", so it is not battery. There has to be some reasonably potential harm in the touch; there must be hostile intent. Again, I was not there, so I'm only going on what I envisioned when I read the message. Neither the "assault" nor the "battery" met the legalistic criteria.Lehi
Mudcat Posted November 3, 2011 Author Posted November 3, 2011 I am out of town for a few days. I'll keep my response shortThanks for all your thoughts!!!In general I think the point I made to pastor was the correct thing to do.I think my need to remove him from the scenario was where I let my anger get away from me. But I don't think it was completely wrong in the circumstances.I don't plan on addressing him intentionally about the matter, but if the situation presents itself, I do plan on engaging the fellow about the events as they transpired.Regards,Mudcat
Recommended Posts