Popular Post Tacenda Posted March 25, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I'm sure you are being genuine, but your responses come across as being quite weird. And anybody that employs so many emoticons and stylized text can't be altogether there. Your remarks are tedious to even read, just not in the mood for this rabbit hole. If you'll indulge me, I'd recommend that you try to not take things so personal as you seem to. And I truly do not mean any offense. You appear to be wearing an inferiority complex on your sleeve, and this does not serve to strengthen your arguments in any way. Just a distraction, really.Kenngo can hold his own, but I need to respond. You're the one who seems to have taken things personally, did you forget this is a discussion board? Edited March 25, 2015 by Tacenda 5
Kenngo1969 Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Waste of life.Yeah. No kidding. I'm sure you are being genuine, but your responses come across as being quite weird. That's me! Genuinely weird! If my responses have moved the needle on your Weirdometer to max, stick around awhile! You haven't seen anything yet! And anybody that employs so many emoticons and stylized text can't be altogether there. I've had my psyche probed, repeatedly, by professionals over more years than I care to admit, and yet all it took was a single post from an anonymous message board poster (who likely has no training in the field) to cut right to the heart of the clinical picture! Amazing! Thank you, wtrdog! Thank you!!! Your remarks are tedious to even read, just not in the mood for this rabbit hole. Pot, meet kettle? If you'll indulge me, I'd recommend that you try to not take things so personal as you seem to. Yeah, um ... about that ... You know all of those emoticons you don't like? And I truly do not mean any offense. Yet condescending to your readers seems to be as easy for you as breathing. You appear to be wearing an inferiority complex on your sleeve, and this does not serve to strengthen your arguments in any way. Just a distraction, really. Seven thousand posts plus on this Board and its predecessors, hundreds of other contributions to on line media, and dozens of opinion pieces published in print under my own name, and you tell me I need to grow a thicker skin? All I can say to that is, "Oh. Okay." And here's an idea: why don't you actually attempt to engage the substance of my argument (see posts 223 and 237) before you, a priori, dismiss it? Edited March 25, 2015 by Kenngo1969 3
Scott Lloyd Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 Yeah. No kidding. That's me! Genuinely weird! If my responses have moved the needle on your Weirdometer to max, stick around awhile! You haven't seen anything yet! I've had my psyche probed, repeatedly, by professionals over more years than I care to admit, and yet all it took was a single post from an anonymous message board poster (who likely has no training in the field) to cut right to the heart of the clinical picture! Amazing! Thank you, wtrdog! Thank you!!! Pot, meet kettle? Yeah, um ... about that ... You know all of those emoticons you don't like? Yet condescending to your readers seems to be as easy for you as breathing. Seven thousand posts plus on this Board and its predecessors, hundreds of other contributions to on line media, and dozens of opinion pieces published in print under my own name, and you tell me I need to grow a thicker skin? All I can say to that is, "Oh. Okay." And here's an idea: why don't you actually attempt to engage the substance of my argument (see posts 223 and 237) before you, a priori, dismiss it? It has been my observation over the years that those who engage in unsolicited amateur psychoanalysis of others are likely as not to have "issues" of their own. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 It has been my observation over the years that those who engage in unsolicited amateur psychoanalysis of others are likely as not to have "issues" of their own. Not to mention in direct violation of board guidelines. 1
stemelbow Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 It has been my observation over the years that those who engage in unsolicited amateur psychoanalysis of others are likely as not to have "issues" of their own. So when you engage in psychoanalysis, like your attempt in the previous page regarding Dehlin and Kelly (arrogant, wanting to bide time in order to take over the Church type stuff), are we to take it as solicited and professional?
stemelbow Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) duped Edited March 25, 2015 by stemelbow
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) So when you engage in psychoanalysis, like your attempt in the previous page regarding Dehlin and Kelly (arrogant, wanting to bide time in order to take over the Church type stuff), are we to take it as solicited and professional?Oh burn. Wait, fail. Edited March 25, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Kenngo1969 Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 It has been my observation over the years that those who engage in unsolicited amateur psychoanalysis of others are likely as not to have "issues" of their own. Not to mention in direct violation of board guidelines.You (both!) don't say! Alas Elvis wtrdog has left the building!
Scott Lloyd Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) So when you engage in psychoanalysis, like your attempt in the previous page regarding Dehlin and Kelly (arrogant, wanting to bide time in order to take over the Church type stuff), are we to take it as solicited and professional?That's not psychoanalysis. It's observation and description. That's what I do. I'm paid for it, in fact. Edited March 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 dupedWhat an opening! Given your post about Dehlin and Kelly, immediately preceding this one, I could do so much with this. Too easy. I'll resist the temptation. Everybody back on topic please. 2
stemelbow Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 That's not psychoanalysis. It's observation and description. That's what I do. I'm paid for it, in fact. You can't observe their intent of taking over if that was not stated, they state the exact opposite of such an intent, and it hasn't happened. That's just plain pretending to know what's in their head. But if you like to give yourself a pass, be my guest.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) You can't observe their intent of taking over if that was not stated, they state the exact opposite of such an intent, and it hasn't happened. That's just plain pretending to know what's in their head. But if you like to give yourself a pass, be my guest.Not that I need such an invitation from you, but thanks, just the same. And generally speaking, one who intends an eventual hostile takeover of a thing could not necessarily be expected to announce such an intention beforehand -- or to own up to it when pressed. Some things can easily and reasonably be inferred when behavior obviously justifies the inference. Furthermore, whether they intend a thing is a separate matter from whether or not they have been or could be successful at it. Edited March 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) What an opening! Given your post about Dehlin and Kelly, immediately preceding this one, I could do so much with this. Too easy. I'll resist the temptation. Everybody back on topic please.Just responding to stemelbow's parting jab. It occurs to me that if the topic is "Reform Mormonism: the Future Splintering of the Church," then the apparent intent of a party or parties to eventually seize control of the Church is quite germane to the topic. That said, since it was my thread to begin with, I heartily agree that everyone should remain on topic. Edited March 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Not that I need such an invitation from you, but thanks, just the same. And generally speaking, one who intends an eventual hostile takeover of thing could not necessarily be expected to announce such an intention beforehand -- or to own up to it when pressed. Some things can easily and reasonably be inferred when behavior obviously justifies the inference. Furthermore, whether they intend a thing is a separate matter from whether or not they have been or could be successful at it. I'm not really very sympathetic to either of the two, but I can't really see how anyone can possibly think that either of them intended to take over. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I'm not really very sympathetic to either of the two, but I can't really see how anyone can possibly think that either of them intended to take over.Just because their respective aims might not have been to establish "The Church of Kate Kelly of Latter-day Saints" or "The Church of John Dehlin of Latter-day Saints," respectively, does not mean that they have not attempted to alter the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in fundamental ways that better match their respective world views. Both of them succeeded in fomenting disunion and in gaining followings of whatever size which are composed of people who believe that their respective "takes" on their pet issues are closer to what ought to be than are the doctrines and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ. Takeover? Maybe not, but, although their methods may differ, I'm hard-pressed to explain the fundamental difference between what Kelly and Dehlin are trying to do and what some (former! rehabilitated!) nutjob who co-opts a worldwide church broadcast for a forum, claims to have a bomb, and demands that the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a statement from him naming him the Church's new prophet is. In either case, if any of these parties had been successful, the organization would barely be recognizable (if even that) as having once existed in its current form. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 30, 2015 Author Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Just because their respective aims might not have been to establish "The Church of Kate Kelly of Latter-day Saints" or "The Church of John Dehlin of Latter-day Saints," respectively, does not mean that they have not attempted to alter the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in fundamental ways that better match their respective world views. Both of them succeeded in fomenting disunion and in gaining followings of whatever size which are composed of people who believe that their respective "takes" on their pet issues are closer to what ought to be than are the doctrines and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ. Takeover? Maybe not, but, although their methods may differ, I'm hard-pressed to explain the fundamental difference between what Kelly and Dehlin are trying to do and what some (former! rehabilitated!) nutjob who co-opts a worldwide church broadcast for a forum, claims to have a bomb, and demands that the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a statement from him naming him the Church's new prophet is. In either case, if any of these parties had been successful, the organization would barely be recognizable (if even that) as having once existed in its current form.Well said indeed! In brief, member or not, faithful or disaffected, hold whatever private opinion or harbor whatever personal heresy you will, but DO NOT try to take our Church away from us or seek to refashion it to your liking. Do I welcome you to the body of believers? I have to say: Not under such circumstances. Edited March 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
stemelbow Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Just because their respective aims might not have been to establish "The Church of Kate Kelly of Latter-day Saints" or "The Church of John Dehlin of Latter-day Saints," respectively, does not mean that they have not attempted to alter the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in fundamental ways that better match their respective world views. Both of them succeeded in fomenting disunion and in gaining followings of whatever size which are composed of people who believe that their respective "takes" on their pet issues are closer to what ought to be than are the doctrines and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ. I don't think anyone is saying they didn't want to see changes and both, most likely, wanted to be credited with change, I'm sure. But that is a far cry from saying they wanted to take over. And that was really my only point. Takeover? Maybe not, but, although their methods may differ, I'm hard-pressed to explain the fundamental difference between what Kelly and Dehlin are trying to do and what some (former! rehabilitated!) nutjob who co-opts a worldwide church broadcast for a forum, claims to have a bomb, and demands that the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a statement from him naming him the Church's new prophet is. In either case, if any of these parties had been successful, the organization would barely be recognizable (if even that) as having once existed in its current form. well, it's silly to think there is no fundamental difference. The difference between what Dehlin, Kelly and this nutjob you allude to are so stark it's unbelievable you think it's a viable comparison.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I don't think anyone is saying they didn't want to see changes and both, most likely, wanted to be credited with change, I'm sure. But that is a far cry from saying they wanted to take over. And that was really my only point. well, it's silly to think there is no fundamental difference. The difference between what Dehlin, Kelly and this nutjob you allude to are so stark it's unbelievable you think it's a viable comparison.Methods, different. Intent, similar. Viable chance of success precisely the same. Edited March 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
sethpayne Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) It has been my observation over the years that those who engage in unsolicited amateur psychoanalysis of others are likely as not to have "issues" of their own. Did you use psychoanalysis to come to this conclusion? Are you a professional psychoanalyst? Edited March 31, 2015 by sethpayne 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Did you use psychoanalysis to come to this conclusion? Are you a professional psychoanalyst?Surely you realize, Sethpayne, that it doesn't take training in psychoanalysis to observe behavior that obviously indicates a person has issues.
Recommended Posts