LDS

[Slowvehicle]

I was not offended, but I thought we might be heading towards a dump-on-all-Mormons thread arc.


For some reason, though, I now have an overpowering urge to make up a pathetic pun in honor of Joseph Smith. Something like, a glowing stone garners no mock.

You may groan in unison.

That was a nice thing you said there. Let us know when you post your pathetic pun, OK?

 

[kerikiwi]

Why the hatred? Why the name-calling? Why the savaging of a person's faith? Why the intolerance? Why the mocking?

An example of each would be appreciated.

 

[deaman]

I speak not only to Cat Tale, but to all of janadele's irrepressible critics: Why the hatred? Why the name-calling? Why the savaging of a person's faith? Why the intolerance? Why the mocking?

What it is, is people calling her on her lies, calling her for upholding fraud, calling her out for spewing out hatred, racism and bigotry.

When you are called out on your actions, as Janadele has been, it must feel like what you've written above, but it is really just people calling Janadel on her actions.

 

[skyrider44]

An example of each would be appreciated.

Within the next few days, I will comply with your request.

 

[dafydd]

An example of each would be appreciated.

Theists have a monopoly on intolerance.

 

[dafydd]

Within the next few days, I will comply with your request.

And you will discover that the posts were merely reactions to Janadele's bigotry and intolerance.

 

[Cat Tale]

Response

In Post 7930, Cat Tale refers to a separate thread janadele started which she entitled the "Heart of the Earth" (not "Hollow Earth"). Cat Tale then quotes Pakeha as asking if the "hollow earth" idea forms part of LDS doctrine, and "she ventured out on her own and basically said yes." janadele considers that a gross misrepresentation; she writes: "I find the subject interesting, but have said very little about it personally one way or the other, and certainly not as LDS. [Cat Tale] refers to my words as if I am saying hollow earth is LDS doctrine, when of course I am saying nothing of the kind."

Actually, the Heart of the Earth thread was brought up on the LDS thread, and that's what I'm talking about, not the other thread. Janadele left many confused by her comments in this LDS thread. I think I've traced it back to post 5912 GeneMachine who asked Randfan to confirm or deny whether or not the "hollow earth" was LDS doctrine. Pup in post 5917 then said his "gut feeling is that you won't find any mention of the hollow earth in either book [BofM or D&C], ..."

It was then, in post 5923 That Janadele said, "There are many appropriate Scriptural references, including the following," and she quoted 5 references from the D&C. Each of them had something like "in the earth" Why is that a common theme in all 5 scriptures if the point is not to show a hollow earth? It was then that Pakeha 5926 quoted Jan's D&C reference posting, and asked her if she was "saying the hollow earth idea forms part of LDS doctrine?" To which she merely answered in 5931, "Pakeha, as you are aware, LDS Scriptures, which includes the Doctrine and Covenants, is LDS Doctrine."

She was asked at least four times, in subsequent posts, like Randfan 5933, where he said, "Do those scriptures mean to you that the Earth is hollow? If not then what do those scriptures mean and why did you post them?" And she never responded, leaving people (including me) baffled as to what exactly she was saying.

I thought this was a thread where she was to discuss LDS doctrine, and suddenly she was confusing them. Why wouldn't she answer them and simply say, "no, that's my own fun thing I'm investigating." Based on the above, what I'd like to know is how is my post 7930 a "gross misrepresentation?" At what point did she dispel the notion that the hollow earth was LDS doctrine in this thread?

1) "Her determination not to engage in critcal thought, but merely cutting and pasting and out and out plagiarism [leads some LDS to think] that LDS are incapable of independent thought." [Note the absence of a qualifier, thus all LDS are incapable of independent thought"--a breathtakingly fallacious claim.]

Can you deny that she's done a lot of cutting and pasting? Can you deny that some of her earlier posts, most particularly the Mountain Meadows one would be considered plagiarism? And can you deny that people have been angered by her refusal to reply in her own words? Thus leading some participants of this thread to conclude that LDS are brainwashed, or incapable of independent thought? Do a search of the word brainwashed, or "independent thought," they're there, and not by me.

2) "Her hostility in this thread has been unconscionable" [Cat Tale obviously gets carried away here]. She claims that what janadele has posted is "totally outside LDS teachings" [more verbal hyperventilation].

We've tried to explain to her what this forum is all about, critical thinking. It's the ability to hold a discussion about the copy pasted material, not just copy pasting. Hostility can mean things like starting a thread on the LDS Church and then not answering questions, or to continue to copy paste when asked to cease and discuss. There have been many times people have asked Janadele to put things in her own words. Here's one by SezMe 2605 Or this one by Kerikiwi 2495 Why does she not respond in her own words? Honestly I can't recall even knowing a LDS who wasn't excited to have the opportunity to talk about the Church, and yet it seems like there were very few topics that she wanted to respond to, often times she'd say something like, "that's not appropriate for this thread," when I didn't see a problem with it.

And as far as me claiming that what Janadele has posted is "totally outside of LDS teachings?" Post What I actually said was her hostility is completely against LDS teachings. Again, I'm most particularly talking about her refusal to answer questions on a thread she started. But there is also just hostility toward the homosexual community, and pretty much accusing anyone who disagrees with/or questions her as anti-Mormon.

A good example of this is when I posted that "there were a lot of things in our church's past that I find disgusting, but they are no longer practiced." And Janadele responded with this post about how there are enemies both within and without the church.

3) "I am embarrassed as a LDS, but not only embarrassed but deeply hurt."
["Deeply hurt"? Playing the victim?]

Me? The victim? Not at all. I can't believe it doesn't bother you that Janadele started this thread and then refuses to/or at least hasn't taken part in an ongoing active discussion based on her own interpretation of the gospel. I mean members do not just copy paste or quote scripture, they're happy to express what the scripture or doctrine means to them, they actively engage in discussion, and/or bear their testimonies. Skyrider, you and I freely express our thoughts and feelings, I'm just confused as to why she doesn't. I could understand if she didn't want to discuss the church on a forum, but she started the thread.

Again, I have no hatred for Janadele. How can I hate someone I know so little about? However, I can stand up against things like lying, plagiarism, making people upset about something I'm passionate about. I've clearly shown my points regarding my previous post and have no more desire to rehash things again. Janadele got her say, though jeopardizing your account. I have not, and will not, report you. That's all I have to say on this subject. However, I will come back and apologize if Janadele can show me where I'm wrong (AFTER her suspension). I have apologized once before on this thread to Janadele when I made a mistake, so I've proven that I will accept my own errors.

 

[halleyscomet]

Me? The victim? Not at all. I can't believe it doesn't bother you that Janadele started this thread and then refuses to/or at least hasn't taken part in an ongoing active discussion based on her own interpretation of the gospel. I mean members do not just copy paste or quote scripture, they're happy to express what the scripture or doctrine means to them, they actively engage in discussion, and/or bear their testimonies. Skyrider, you and I freely express our thoughts and feelings, I'm just confused as to why she doesn't. I could understand if she didn't want to discuss the church on a forum, but she started the thread.

You are a credit to your faith, as are the other Mormons who have honestly and sincerely answered questions that have been asked here. Thank you.

 

[desertgal]

I see skyrider is going with the assumption that the only valid point of view on this thread is Janadele's. How very impartial of him.

Not that Janadele offered her own point of view, but...

 

[Dissolution]

Whilst I don't share her conclusions on many of the issues bought up by this thread, the openness, honesty and integrity that Cat Tale has displayed in her posts has been reflected in the responses.

I'm at a loss as to how anyone could fail to share that opinion.

 

[skyrider44]

And you will discover that the posts were merely reactions to Janadele's bigotry and intolerance.

In other words, it's perfectly fine for Person B to adopt Person A's bigotry and intolerance by responding with bigotry and intolerance of his/her own.

 

[Myriad]

In other words, it's perfectly fine for Person B to adopt Person A's bigotry and intolerance by responding with bigotry and intolerance of his/her own.

It's less than ideal behavior for B to do so, but it's outright ridiculous for A to complain about it if he does.

(KJV):

Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. (Job 4:8)

But this [I say], He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. (2 Corinthians 9:6)

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:1-2)

 

[JoeMorgue]

In other words, it's perfectly fine for Person B to adopt Person A's bigotry and intolerance by responding with bigotry and intolerance of his/her own.

This is getting dangerously close to the old "You're intolerant because you won't tolerate my intolerance" argument.

"Tolerance" is not an unlimited concept that has to be applied to everything in order to be valid.

Being intolerant of intolerance is not hypocritical.

 

[kerikiwi]

In other words, it's perfectly fine for Person B to adopt Person A's bigotry and intolerance by responding with bigotry and intolerance of his/her own.

Can we have examples of Person A's bigotry and intolerance?
Iam interested in what you mean by these two things.

 

[bruto]

In other words, it's perfectly fine for Person B to adopt Person A's bigotry and intolerance by responding with bigotry and intolerance of his/her own.

If there was bigotry and intolerance directed at "person A," even if it was uncalled for, I would not consider it the same thing as bigotry and intolerance directed at classes of people not involved in the argument.

If a person says, in effect, "I consider [class of person] sinful and unworthy of equal treatment," it may well be improper for me to say "I consider you unworthy for saying that," but it would not be the same thing.

Anyway, the form of your own statement does not make much sense unless you're acknowledging the initial bigotry and intolerance of "person A."

 

[Slowvehicle]

In other words, it's perfectly fine for Person B to adopt Person A's bigotry and intolerance by responding with bigotry and intolerance of his/her own.

Will you be posting examples of the "bigotry and intolerance" of which you accuse "person B"? Is this, instead, another example of your dependence upon the New Mexico Tourist's Fallacy?

 

[Olowkow]

If there was bigotry and intolerance directed at "person A," even if it was uncalled for, I would not consider it the same thing as bigotry and intolerance directed at classes of people not involved in the argument.

If a person says, in effect, "I consider [class of person] sinful and unworthy of equal treatment," it may well be improper for me to say "I consider you unworthy for saying that," but it would not be the same thing.

Anyway, the form of your own statement does not make much sense unless you're acknowledging the initial bigotry and intolerance of "person A."

^^^^ I agree.

It's one thing to sit at home on your porch and shout hateful speech and spew venom at passers by, and quite another to help fund an entire organization that spends these funds to encourage non members of this organization to spew their venom on an entire subset of the population who happen to have personal traits they don't like. I'm thinking of LDS' involvement and funding of Proposition 8. Denying people human rights in the name of religious dogma is wrong. That is what theocracies do.

I am compelled by common sense and my internal moral sense to inform such people that I disagree in the strongest terms with their hate.

 

[skyrider44]

Really? What do you think it discloses, other than a sense of ribaldry?

If you don't know what it discloses, there isn't anything I can offer in terms of remedial counsel.

Then, out of the blue, you launch into yet another diatribe against LDS historicity.

Why does it matter to you if, as you claim, the LDS Church is a fraud and the BoM and BA were written by Joseph Smith, who was a con man? Tell me why it matters to you. Why the obsession? Has the Church injured you in some way . . .driven you from your home . . . sent you a bill for past-due tithing . . . forced you to wear garments . . . marched you at gunpoint to pick apples on a stake farm . . .caused you to be fired from you job? Surely there must be some explanation for the 24/7 vilification of the LDS Church.

 

[skyrider44]

Can we have examples of Person A's bigotry and intolerance?
I am interested in what you mean by these two things.

Rest assured, kerikiwi, the examples you requested in Post 7962 will be posted shortly. I think you will have your hands full explaining those. Once you have done that, I will respond to your most recent request.

 

[Olowkow]

I'd like to know why Mormons like to quote Harold Bloom "Joseph Smith was a religious genius" implying that it is a compliment to LDS. Are they misinformed or lying?

Yale professor Harold Bloom warns of Romney and Mormon theocracy | Deseret News

Mormons are somewhat fond of quoting Yale professor Harold Bloom when he refers to the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an "authentic religious genius."
He even repeated this in a recent interview with the Deseret News where he not only said Joseph Smith was a religious genius, but that "Had I been a nineteenth-century American and not Jewish I would probably have become a Mormon . . . "