jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Tell that to the bishop she has vilified in public. What does YMMV mean? Your mileage may vary. 1
ttribe Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) What does YMMV mean? Your Mileage May Vary. ETA: John beat me to it. Edited July 20, 2015 by ttribe
Damien the Leper Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 As has been pointed out, you are free to withdraw from the thread.I asked a simple question that warrants a simple answer. Not asking for brain surgery.
jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Admittedly, I didn't pay much attention to the Kate Kelly saga, and I'm just going by what she wrote in the op-ed. I must have missed the bishop-vilification.
Damien the Leper Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I appreciate the information and analysis and find it useful. Maybe you don't, but you are free to ignore the thread.Ok. But what good does it do for you personally? Kate Kelly is irrelevant. She's no longer a member and has no influence on the membership. That's like saying Satan influences members. No! People make choices via thought processes and not some psychologically empowered boogie man being used as a scapegoat. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Admittedly, I didn't pay much attention to the Kate Kelly saga, and I'm just going by what she wrote in the op-ed. I must have missed the bishop-vilification. I get the impression there's a lot you have missed from not paying much attention. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Ok. But what good does it do for you personally? Kate Kelly is irrelevant. She's no longer a member and has no influence on the membership. That's like saying Satan influences members. No! People make choices via thought processes and not some psychologically empowered boogie man being used as a scapegoat.Having her membership removed does not preclude or prevent her from trying to harm the Church. 2
ttribe Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) I get the impression there's a lot you have missed from not paying much attention. Nice cheap shot. What's that for? Edited July 20, 2015 by ttribe
Scott Lloyd Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I asked a simple question that warrants a simple answer. Not asking for brain surgery.And I've given a fairly plain answer.
jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I get the impression there's a lot you have missed from not paying much attention. Fair enough.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Nice cheap shot. What's that for?Not a cheap shot. If he's not acquainted with the pubic statements she has made, obviously, he's not very thoroughly informed about the matter. I was merely agreeing with him. I don't fault him for not paying attention to it, but if one is not speaking from an informed perspective, I think that needs to be pointed out. Edited July 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 And I've given a fairly plain answer.You did. Thank you.
jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I always had the impression her heart was in the right place, but her efforts showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how the church works. So, no, I didn't pay all that much attention, so maybe I just missed the bishop hatred.
Damien the Leper Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Having her membership removed does not preclude or prevent her from trying to harm the Church.She doesn't have the power to do so. She's a non-issue certain conservatives are obsessed with because she had a liberal cause and had her 15 minutes...minutes you and I will unfortunately never get back. It's like watching Fox or CNN.
smac97 Posted July 20, 2015 Author Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Admittedly, I didn't pay much attention to the Kate Kelly saga, and I'm just going by what she wrote in the op-ed. I must have missed the bishop-vilification. She publicly accused him (to the New York Times, no less) of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike." She also apparently tried to damage his relationship with his employer. She also threatened to sue her stake president. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 20, 2015 by smac97 3
bluebell Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I asked a simple question that warrants a simple answer. Not asking for brain surgery. He already provided an answer (more than one actually). Post 214 is probably a good place to start. I'm guessing that's why he's not excited to rehash the topic one more time.
smac97 Posted July 20, 2015 Author Posted July 20, 2015 I appreciate the information and analysis and find it useful. Maybe you don't, but you are free to ignore the thread. As for why the thread was closed, I don't know, but I can suggest a possible reason. We were getting a lot of drive-by jabs devoid of substance, and enough irrelevancies and derailments to warrant a warning from a moderator that the thread was going in too many different directions and was on the verge of being closed. Sometimes, suspending the thread for a while can curtail such nonsense. I've tried that in the past, and it has worked. Your surmise is pretty much correct. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted July 20, 2015 Author Posted July 20, 2015 He already provided an answer (more than one actually). Post 214 is probably a good place to start. I'm guessing that's why he's not excited to rehash the topic one more time. Here's a link to post #214. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 She publicly accused him (to the New York Times, no less) of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike." She also threatened to sue her stake president. Thanks, -Smac I've had church leaders I would say were cowardly and unchristlike, so I can't judge in that matter. I can't imagine suing a stake president, though.
smac97 Posted July 20, 2015 Author Posted July 20, 2015 I always had the impression her heart was in the right place, but her efforts showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how the church works. So, no, I didn't pay all that much attention, so maybe I just missed the bishop hatred. That was my initial assessment as well. But I did not miss the "bishop hatred" (I wouldn't have called it that). Thanks, -Smac
Jeanne Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Nice cheap shot. What's that for?I agree..this type of comment might encourage one to leave the church. Apparently, those who no longer are in the church lack intelligence and/or no "in the know," At least he was honest. Edited July 20, 2015 by Jeanne
ttribe Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Not a cheap shot. If he's not acquainted with the pubic statements she has made, obviously, he's not very thoroughly informed about the matter. I was merely agreeing with him. I don't fault him for not paying attention to it, but if one is not speaking from an informed perspective, I think that needs to be pointed out. Thank you, Sheldon Cooper.
jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I agree..this type of comment might encourage one to leave the church. I didn't take it as a cheap shot, but I'm not going to leave the church. I am trying to destroy it from the inside, one testimony at a time. 1
Nemesis Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 FYI if you are in the contributor group you can open,close and moderate your own threads. Nemesis
sethpayne Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I didn't take it as a cheap shot, but I'm not going to leave the church. I am trying to destroy it from the inside, one testimony at a time. Shhh!!! Don't give away our plan, John!!!
Recommended Posts