CASteinman Posted May 15, 2012 Posted May 15, 2012 It is seen as in polite and people just shut down. I am very good at it, but I don't want to be...I want to be Christlike, although at times he would 'cut to the chase" as you call it. But I am not him. Shades has no standards in this respect so he allows some very bad behavior.Well, I have some standards. I don't think it should be merely capricious name calling and flaming. On the other hand, given latitude, if I simply have decided someone is not worth my time, I do not have a problem with a quick diss each time that they seek to engage. However, I am trying to learn to be better than that.
CASteinman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 WOW.... your didn't just say that? Who determines the line? you?Sorry that offends you, but it is the doctrine of the Church as found in the scriptures. The person who determines this is the Bishop or Stake President.Elder Holland says the following "I don't see anything in Elder Holland's statement that contradicts me at all. Do you really believe that less active, or uncommitted people are the same as Wolves in Sheep's Clothing? I certainly don't. If you do, your feelings on this matter are somewhat more extreme than mine. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with Elder Holland. Wholeheartedly. Enthusiastically. I must, for if I run around and compare myself with some other people, I am seemingly less committed. And so I must agree with Elder Holland if I do that. And even if I do not do that, I must still agree because that is one of the key missions of the Church -- to Perfect the Saints. I really really believe in that!
CASteinman Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Some of you may want to have an interfaith experience in your ad hominem. If so, it is hard to find a better, more authoritative evangelical voice than Martin Luther. He was German and I am sure these words sounded better in that guttural tongue, but lets try to get past that and enjoy the enthusiastic stylings of M Luther in English:http://ergofabulous.org/luther/I will quote one just for flavor..."Just as the devil is disorderly and jumbles things together, so your writings and head are equally disordered and mixed up, so that it is exceedingly annoying to read and difficult to remember what you write."Its like he had the Internet.....
Log Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) "You rush forward as an a s s under the pelt of a lion." - M. LutherIs that where C. S. Lewis got the idea for that donkey in the lion's skin? Edited May 16, 2012 by Log
DBMormon Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Sorry that offends you, but it is the doctrine of the Church as found in the scriptures. The person who determines this is the Bishop or Stake President.It offends me in that I see too many LDS who pass judgement on what is and isn't an allowed stand or belief in the church. Too many lines in the sand... Too many saints see others who are not like them and want to make a point that because they are at two different places the other person must be wrong. I want to be real careful when we say that we should force out others...... My job is to love and serve and if the Bishop or Stake President feel inspired that the person is a wolf in sheeps clothing then I support them but I try to leave that determination up to them. There are many who may seem to one as a wolf in sheep's clothing while that may not be the case.Many on here for instance might see my urge to bring reform in the way we teach, what we teach.... or my views on Grace and see me as a wolf... and yet I don't think anyone who knows me personally would take that position. I just thought unless you are the bishop and speaking of a specific individual... it isn't your place to throw anyone anywhere. I wouldn't want someone to come through this thread who differs in several positions and read your post in a different tone then you intend and walk away feeling unable to be unique in their mindset.. that's all Edited May 16, 2012 by reelmormon
DBMormon Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 CA I want to add this. I am not saying you completely stand by We should1.) correct false Doctrine is some way as it is taught in class, but we better be sure of our position being doctrine as I have seen the correcting person be wrong. We also correct/reprove it in the softest approach that will actually work2.) We should not stand by if someone is tearing down the Ward or Church, we ensure the Bishop or presiding officer is aware of it.3.) If we are certain their position is off base and think it is intentional, take them aside and ask them about it, give them a chance to explain. Maybe there are other ideas as well.... just not jump to throw them out unless presidng authority feels that is the best option
CASteinman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 It offends me in that I see too many LDS who pass judgement on what is and isn't an allowed stand or belief in the church. Too many lines in the sand... Too many saints see others who are not like them and want to make a point that because they are at two different places the other person must be wrong. I want to be real careful when we say that we should force out others...... My job is to love and serve and if the Bishop or Stake President feel inspired that the person is a wolf in sheeps clothing then I support them but I try to leave that determination up to them. There are many who may seem to one as a wolf in sheep's clothing while that may not be the case.Many on here for instance might see my urge to bring reform in the way we teach, what we teach.... or my views on Grace and see me as a wolf... and yet I don't think anyone who knows me personally would take that position. I just thought unless you are the bishop and speaking of a specific individual... it isn't your place to throw anyone anywhere. I wouldn't want someone to come through this thread who differs in several positions and read your post in a different tone then you intend and walk away feeling unable to be unique in their mindset.. that's allI wasn't talking about being hetrodox. I was talking about being an enemy to the Gospel and seeking to undermine the Faith of the Saints. Those people need to go. It is a bit strange to me -- this is not the first time it has happened here -- that someone sees the term "Enemy to the Gospel" or "Enemy to the Saints" and reads "Someone doubting" or "Someone with off the wall opinions" or "Someone less active".I don't get that at all. Those are not enemies and I can't figure out why they would be confused with enemies. I don't think I have been unclear, but maybe so.
DBMormon Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 It is a bit strange to me -- this is not the first time it has happened here -- that someone sees the term "Enemy to the Gospel" or "Enemy to the Saints" and reads "Someone doubting" or "Someone with off the wall opinions" or "Someone less active".What I am saying is that while you differentiate, many don't and in fact if you look at my grace and works thread, you will see someone there who criticizes me because I believe differently then him.Your statement can be fuel to the fire for others to be more critical as they see it as permission. that's all
KevinG Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 There are cases where an Uber-Mormon* can do as much damage to another's faith as an anti-Mormon.*characterized by knowing more than anyone else and acting as though personal knowledge is license to correct the whole church no matter their lack of stewardship over those they are correcting.
CASteinman Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 What I am saying is that while you differentiate, many don't and in fact if you look at my grace and works thread, you will see someone there who criticizes me because I believe differently then him.Your statement can be fuel to the fire for others to be more critical as they see it as permission. that's allAhhh.. I see. I get a bit of sandpapering for the sins of others! Well, if it helps, I'm not too upset with it, because it was, after all, only virtual sandpaper.
Kenngo1969 Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Wish my hair was that thick...it is thinning on top, but a lot of that is wearing a hard had all the time, and teaching by night. especially in bad lighting at night.Pink hair would be way kewel too, don'tcha think? Edited May 18, 2012 by Kenngo1969
treehugger Posted May 19, 2012 Author Posted May 19, 2012 In point of fact, you have offered not the first criticism of those who shamelessly and ceaselessly foment falsehood and calumny against Professor Peterson.Your indignation is reserved wholly for the faithful amongst us, rather than the faithless.That behavior unerringly confirms my worst suspicions about your behavior and motives. One who truly holds the the authority which you have arrogated to yourself would be able to state plainly whether he has or has not. If you truly knew what you were talking about, these sorts of weasel words would not be necessary.I also noticed that- despite all the screaming, crying, gnashing of teeth, and hand-wringing in three plus threads dedicated to that purpose- NOONE, least of all you, has provided ANY evidence of ad hominem on the part of Professor Peterson, FAIR, or MI.Disagreements and differences of opinion aplenty- but not a single instance of ad hominem.As such, the accusation that "both sides are equally guilty" is a wilfull exercise in fraud.Please see the following post-------it seems Bob C is correct, no one agrees on what it is. William Schyver admits he sees it [ad hominem] usage and Paharon claims he does not see its [ad hominem] usage.---------And as I stated in another thread, I do not advocate two standards of conduct. Cheers
Log Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) William Schryver nowhere said he saw ad hominem useage. That was a claim you, Treehugger, put in his mouth.What he said was, "As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of 'ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric' in either FAIR or MI publications."Likewise, I am not aware of any unicorns of significant size living in my garden. I would find it psychiatrically interesting should any infer from my statement that I am aware of any unicorns of any size living in my garden. Edited May 19, 2012 by Log
selek1 Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 William Schryver nowhere said he saw ad hominem useage. That was a claim you, Treehugger, put in his mouth.What he said was, "As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of 'ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric' in either FAIR or MI publications."Likewise, I am not aware of any unicorns of significant size living in my garden. I would find it psychiatrically interesting should any infer from my statement that I am aware of any unicorns of any size living in my garden.I suspect that someone has been reading Thurber as of late....
Log Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 I suspect that someone has been reading Thurber as of late....Oh, hahaha, would you believe I never had even heard of him or that story until I googled him in response to your post?
treehugger Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 log, Mr. Schyver can speak for himself and once again this thread is not an attack thread. Log, you should read the original post, that will address your concern and what Mr. Schyvers posting meant.
Log Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) log, Mr. Schyver can speak for himself No, he cannot. He was banned.Log, you should read the original post, that will address your concern and what Mr. Schyvers posting meant.Do you truly wish it to be known that you believe I am aware of unicorns of some size in my garden because I said I was unaware of any unicorns of significant size in my garden? Edited May 20, 2012 by Log
CASteinman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) Never mind. Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman
selek1 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Oh, hahaha, would you believe I never had even heard of him or that story until I googled him in response to your post?Given the sorry state of public edumacashun, I might indeed.Fortunately, you have self-corrected the oversight.If you can find them, I recommend Thurber's The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (Danny Kaye did a fantastic movie version with Boris Karloff) and the short story parody- the Secret Mitty of Walter Life.Also good is his illustrated short story- The Last Flower.
Recommended Posts