Sensationalism

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think the issue is coming down to your dismissal of his comments.  He suggested his family is strong and loving.  SOmehow you felt the need to disagree with that.  I think that's what is being called audacious.  YOu have no idea and seem to have no grounds to judge.

We all have to make judgments. My judgement is based on my understanding of eternal law and revealed truth. I understand that it is not the most pleasant thing to hear, but, in the context of this conversation and the point of this board, I don't feel like it it is out of place.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

We all have to make judgments. My judgement is based on my understanding of eternal law and revealed truth. I understand that it is not the most pleasant thing to hear, but, in the context of this conversation and the point of this board, I don't feel like it it is out of place.

I get that, but that defines your response as audacious, very rude, but to be clear, most likely wrong. 

[Mystery Meat]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I get that, but that defines your response as audacious, very rude, but to be clear, most likely wrong. 

I disagree on both accounts. I am aligned with the Prophets and Apostles, and so I feel I am on VERY strong ground.

I think it is rude to not call evil, evil.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

We all have to make judgments. My judgement is based on my understanding of eternal law and revealed truth. I understand that it is not the most pleasant thing to hear, but, in the context of this conversation and the point of this board, I don't feel like it it is out of place.

So here's a thought exercise - Next Sunday, one of your fellow ward members (not a Priesthood leader) knocks on your door and says: "I've been watching your family in Church and in the neighborhood and I believe you are not encouraging them to keep the Sabbath properly.  You are leading your children into sin and I feel like I must tell you that.  Don't be angry at me because, although it is not the most pleasant thing to hear, I don't feel like it is out of place for me to pass judgment upon you and tell you what I really think about the damage you are doing to your family."

How well would that go down with you?

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I disagree on both accounts. I am aligned with the Prophets and Apostles, and so I feel I am on VERY strong ground.

I think it is rude to not call evil, evil.

Are you sure about that?

 

https://www.lds.org/youth/video/stop-judging-others?lang=eng

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, Gray said:

Are you sure about that?

 

https://www.lds.org/youth/video/stop-judging-others?lang=eng

Yes. Definitively.

[Mystery Meat]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So here's a thought exercise - Next Sunday, one of your fellow ward members (not a Priesthood leader) knocks on your door and says: "I've been watching your family in Church and in the neighborhood and I believe you are not encouraging them to keep the Sabbath properly.  You are leading your children into sin and I feel like I must tell you that.  Don't be angry at me because, although it is not the most pleasant thing to hear, I don't feel like it is out of place for me to pass judgment upon you and tell you what I really think about the damage you are doing to your family."

How well would that go down with you?

Just fine. 

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Just fine. 

I find that response bizarre.  Perhaps you set your interpersonal boundaries in a significantly different place than I do, but I'm quite sure I would ask that person to leave and I would let them know that how I handle my family is none of his/her damn business.  Nor was it your damn business to tell another poster on here that the presence of a SSM relationship within his/her extended family was causing harm to his own immediate family.

Edited May 24, 2016 by ttribe

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

 I think this has been the case with erasing gender with transgender bathrooms and destroying the family with same sex marriage. This is being done quietly, while people cry and scream about pedophiles and perverts, thus distracting from the real evils.

Where was this ""morality" last 15 thousand years? Romans, Greeks and their predecessors were perfectly OK with same gender bathroom, not only that they were very OK with homosexuality, since they practiced openly, everywhere...... Until Christianity and Islam pervaded morality......

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I disagree on both accounts. I am aligned with the Prophets and Apostles, and so I feel I am on VERY strong ground.

I think it is rude to not call evil, evil.

Alright.  It's not rude, in your mind, to condemn another family whom you don't know because you believe the prophets.  Great!  the reasoning is unassailable, I'm sure. 

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Yes. Definitively.

As long as you're sure. 

[Mystery Meat]

31 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I find that response bizarre.  Perhaps you set your interpersonal boundaries in a significantly different place than I do, but I'm quite sure I would ask that person to leave and I would let them know that how I handle my family is none of his/her damn business.  Nor was it your damn business to tell another poster on here that the presence of a SSM relationship within his/her extended family was causing harm to his own immediate family.

Not bizarre at all. I have had received my fair share of criticism and critique. I think the person means well most of the time and so to be offended by the situation seems bizarre to me. Asking them to leave and telling them to mind their own business seems pretty abrasive and reeks of insecurity and looking to be offended.

Additionally, this is a discussion board. If I can't come here to defend my beliefs, then what is the point. The poster in question brought his personal family situation into this. If he/she, and others, don't want commentary on it, then leave it out of it. But as soon as it is brought in I can comment on it. You are then free to comment on my commentary, and so on and son on. 

I follow the Prophets and Apostles in my belief that SSM and homosexual relationships are evil and not of God. It is one of many ways to sin and one of many influences that are destroying the institution of the family (for crying out loud, gay activists have said that was the goal from the get go). Sin is evil. Period. SSM destroys the institution of the family. Period. You don't like that stance. But now I am supposed to feel like a jerk for stating as much. That's fine, I guess. I suspect nothing less from the bullys of the SSM group. I have members of my family who are gay, lesbian, bi, and potentially transgender. They are find people. They do a lot of good and I have no problem claiming them as members of my family. But my kids will always know that having sex or being married to someone of the same gender is sin and contrary to principles of the Restored Gospel and the Laws of God. Furthermore, embracing sin is a surefire way to lose your soul and your family, not just for time, but for all eternity. You don't like that, fine. I can't help that. You want to be offended? Fine, that's a you problem, not a me problem.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Not bizarre at all. I have had received my fair share of criticism and critique. I think the person means well most of the time and so to be offended by the situation seems bizarre to me. Asking them to leave and telling them to mind their own business seems pretty abrasive and reeks of insecurity and looking to be offended.

Additionally, this is a discussion board. If I can't come here to defend my beliefs, then what is the point. The poster in question brought his personal family situation into this. If he/she, and others, don't want commentary on it, then leave it out of it. But as soon as it is brought in I can comment on it. You are then free to comment on my commentary, and so on and son on. 

I follow the Prophets and Apostles in my belief that SSM and homosexual relationships are evil and not of God. It is one of many ways to sin and one of many influences that are destroying the institution of the family (for crying out loud, gay activists have said that was the goal from the get go). Sin is evil. Period. SSM destroys the institution of the family. Period. You don't like that stance. But now I am supposed to feel like a jerk for stating as much. That's fine, I guess. I suspect nothing less from the bullys of the SSM group. I have members of my family who are gay, lesbian, bi, and potentially transgender. They are find people. They do a lot of good and I have no problem claiming them as members of my family. But my kids will always know that having sex or being married to someone of the same gender is sin and contrary to principles of the Restored Gospel and the Laws of God. Furthermore, embracing sin is a surefire way to lose your soul and your family, not just for time, but for all eternity. You don't like that, fine. I can't help that. You want to be offended? Fine, that's a you problem, not a me problem.

I don't think anyone is offended, but I can't see how it's any of your business to opine on the state of another person's family. Sorry, but that's way out of bounds. My brother drinks coffee. Does that weaken our family? My sister converted to Judaism. Did that weaken my family? According to you, it should, but it's not your concern.

Edited May 24, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Mystery Meat]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Alright.  It's not rude, in your mind, to condemn another family whom you don't know because you believe the prophets.  Great!  the reasoning is unassailable, I'm sure. 

I didn't condemn anyone. That is not my place. Only one gets to condemn or exalt, and it sure as heck ain't me. But 'wo unto them who call good, evil and evil, good." We all judge and need to judge. But those judgments should be made in accordance with righteous principles. I judge sin for what it is, sin. I make that judgment based on three things: (a) what the Spirit teaches. (b) what God teaches. (c) what Prophets and Apostles have taught and do teach. SSM homosexual sex is a sin based on all three of the foregoing. Embracing sin is a type of apostasy. But sure, feel free to put words in my mouth, because you feel justified because I dared share my beliefs.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Not bizarre at all. I have had received my fair share of criticism and critique. I think the person means well most of the time and so to be offended by the situation seems bizarre to me. Asking them to leave and telling them to mind their own business seems pretty abrasive and reeks of insecurity and looking to be offended.

Additionally, this is a discussion board. If I can't come here to defend my beliefs, then what is the point. The poster in question brought his personal family situation into this. If he/she, and others, don't want commentary on it, then leave it out of it. But as soon as it is brought in I can comment on it. You are then free to comment on my commentary, and so on and son on. 

I follow the Prophets and Apostles in my belief that SSM and homosexual relationships are evil and not of God. It is one of many ways to sin and one of many influences that are destroying the institution of the family (for crying out loud, gay activists have said that was the goal from the get go). Sin is evil. Period. SSM destroys the institution of the family. Period. You don't like that stance. But now I am supposed to feel like a jerk for stating as much. That's fine, I guess. I suspect nothing less from the bullys of the SSM group. I have members of my family who are gay, lesbian, bi, and potentially transgender. They are find people. They do a lot of good and I have no problem claiming them as members of my family. But my kids will always know that having sex or being married to someone of the same gender is sin and contrary to principles of the Restored Gospel and the Laws of God. Furthermore, embracing sin is a surefire way to lose your soul and your family, not just for time, but for all eternity. You don't like that, fine. I can't help that. You want to be offended? Fine, that's a you problem, not a me problem.

I've said nothing about your stance; only your decision to condemn someone else's family because of your stance.  Once again, you've imputed opinions to me that I have never expressed and assumed I've taken a "side" with no evidence to support it.  Way to go.

For the record, it has been my observation that people who accuse others of "wanting to be offended" do so to avoid being accountable for their own arrogance and boorish behavior.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think anyone is offended, but I can't see how it's any of your business to opine on the state of another person's family. Sorry, but that's way out of bounds. My brother drinks coffee. Does that weaken our family? My sister converted to Judaism. Did that weaken my family? According to you, it should, but it's not your concern.

If it can't be discussed in the context of this thread and discussion board, then the poster should not have used it as a means to end discussion. I use general principals, which are sound, and applied them. In order for any family relationship to endure it requires the sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise. Rejecting God's laws puts that sealing in jeopardy.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[ttribe]

 

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

I didn't condemn anyone. That is not my place. Only one gets to condemn or exalt, and it sure as heck ain't me. But 'wo unto them who call good, evil and evil, good." We all judge and need to judge. But those judgments should be made in accordance with righteous principles. I judge sin for what it is, sin. I make that judgment based on three things: (a) what the Spirit teaches. (b) what God teaches. (c) what Prophets and Apostles have taught and do teach. SSM homosexual sex is a sin based on all three of the foregoing. Embracing sin is a type of apostasy. But sure, feel free to put words in my mouth, because you feel justified because I dared share my beliefs.

You said below (emphasis mine):

3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I disagree. You apparently believe that that is okay and good. Such an attitude will only weaken your family and your brothers because they feel justified in continuing in sin and/or justifying others sin.

How is that not a condemnation?  This post goes way beyond daring to share your beliefs.

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, ttribe said:

 

You said below (emphasis mine):

How is that not a condemnation?  This post goes way beyond daring to share your beliefs.

I condemned no one. Condemnation involves a pronouncement of the eternal destiny of an individual. I don't pretend to be aware of the facts sufficient to make such a pronouncement. Based on your definition, sin can never be decried, and repentance never declared as that would be condemning someone. 

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I've said nothing about your stance; only your decision to condemn someone else's family because of your stance.  Once again, you've imputed opinions to me that I have never expressed and assumed I've taken a "side" with no evidence to support it.  Way to go.

For the record, it has been my observation that people who accuse others of "wanting to be offended" do so to avoid being accountable for their own arrogance and boorish behavior.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

It varies quite a bit.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

I condemned no one. Condemnation involves a pronouncement of the eternal destiny of an individual. I don't pretend to be aware of the facts sufficient to make such a pronouncement. Based on your definition, sin can never be decried, and repentance never declared as that would be condemning someone. 

Nonsense.  Again, you are reading way more into my objection to your post than is warranted.  I pointed out that it was not your place to say what you said to Rock_and-Roll; that's it.  You continue to assume facts not in evidence.

By the way, your definition of "condemn" is really narrow.  I'm pretty sure your post meets the general use of the term just fine; see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

It varies quite a bit.

Obviously.

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, ttribe said:

Nonsense.  Again, you are reading way more into my objection to your post than is warranted.  I pointed out that it was not your place to say what you said to Rock_and-Roll; that's it.  You continue to assume facts not in evidence.

By the way, your definition of "condemn" is really narrow.  I'm pretty sure your post meets the general use of the term just fine; see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn

Obviously.

Based on the definition you linked to, yes, sin could never be decried because to do so would require a statement that the sin is bad. But let's use the definition and make a distinction: I condemn sin and I have condemned sin in this thread (SSM, homosexual sex, and support of the same) and have not condemned anyone. Big distinction, even in the definition you supplied. 

[ttribe]

 

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

Based on the definition you linked to, yes, sin could never be decried because to do so would require a statement that the sin is bad. But let's use the definition and make a distinction: I condemn sin and I have condemned sin in this thread (SSM, homosexual sex, and support of the same) and have not condemned anyone. Big distinction, even in the definition you supplied. 

You say you "have not condemned anyone" and, yet, your post below (see the bolded portion) indicates otherwise to me.  How do you reconcile stating you "have not condemned anyone" with your post below?

 

3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I disagree. You apparently believe that that is okay and good. Such an attitude will only weaken your family and your brothers because they feel justified in continuing in sin and/or justifying others sin.

I gotta say, this is one of my stranger interactions on this board.  Nowhere did I say you, or anyone else, should be prevented from stating whether they believe some set of behaviors are sinful.  I did, however, criticize your post wherein you specifically told poster Rock_and_Roll that his/her "attitude will only weaken your family and your brothers..."  That's the extent of my criticism.  You want to condemn "sinful" behaviors generally?  Go for it.  But, IMO, when you specifically tell another poster he/she is weakening his/her family based on little to no information, you've crossed a line from "decrying sin" generally to arrogant, boorish behavior.

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, ttribe said:

 

You say you "have not condemned anyone" and, yet, your post below (see the bolded portion) indicates otherwise to me.  How do you reconcile stating you "have not condemned anyone" with your post below?

Easy. Discussing the consequences of sin and their inevitable effect on another person is not condemning that person.

I gotta say, this is one of my stranger interactions on this board.  Nowhere did I say you, or anyone else, should be prevented from stating whether they believe some set of behaviors are sinful.  I did, however, criticize your post wherein you specifically told poster Rock_and_Roll that his/her "attitude will only weaken your family and your brothers..."  That's the extent of my criticism.  You want to condemn "sinful" behaviors generally?  Go for it.  But, IMO, when you specifically tell another poster he/she is weakening his/her family based on little to no information, you've crossed a line from "decrying sin" generally to arrogant, boorish behavior.

That poster brought his family into the conversation I did not. And it was meant as a weapon to try and end the conversation. I merely said that no one, including his family or his brother's family, was immune from the effects of sin. If you want to be offended, go right ahead.

 

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

That poster brought his family into the conversation I did not. And it was meant as a weapon to try and end the conversation. I merely said that no one, including his family or his brother's family, was immune from the effects of sin. If you want to be offended, go right ahead.

You are inferring his intent without evidence.

You are stating I am "offended" without evidence.

Apparently, your heels are dug in and you refuse to see how you might have any responsibility, whatsoever, for encouraging useful dialogue on this board.  It seems, to me, you want free license to say whatever the hell you want because of your firm belief in the correctness of your position and everyone else should just live with it because, you know, it's their fault if they are "offended" by your thoughtlessness and lack of tact.

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

You are inferring his intent without evidence.

You are stating I am "offended" without evidence.

Apparently, your heels are dug in and you refuse to see how you might have any responsibility, whatsoever, for encouraging useful dialogue on this board.  It seems, to me, you want free license to say whatever the hell you want because of your firm belief in the correctness of your position and everyone else should just live with it because, you know, it's their fault if they are "offended" by your thoughtlessness and lack of tact.

No, I just don't think the people who are so upset by it are mad for any other reason then I gored one of their sacred cows.

Also, I think there is plenty of evidence to infer that you are offended (your heated and vehement response, for example, is evidence).

Likewise, I think there is evidence to indicate his purpose for mentioning his own family.