The Mockingboard.

[_rcrocket]

If you don't want people criticizing (mocking) what you hold dear, then don't drag it out in front of them and expect them to respect it. Keep it in your heart and shut the hell up.

You all are so damned confused or you just don't want to read my posts.

I don't care if you mock. I don't get offended. I don't get upset. I am not shocked. I am not concerned. MM, Harmony, Rollie, MS, mock all you want! More of it! It entertains me! Say anything you want, on any topic and I can respond if I have time or interest. Rollie: If you think that it is fundamentally wrong to assume that one should never criticize the brethren, then by all means let loose! Let her rip.

My point is and remains: You are cowards to mock (or criticize, if you choose) in a public forum anonymously. You are hypocrites if you do so and otherwise hold yourself out to be members in good standing.

The way all of you choose to respond to my challenge is to say the following: (1) you are not mocking. (2) criticism is not mocking. (3) it is OK to mock. (4) If I don't like mocking, the get the hell away from here.

You simply ignore my core point about your cowardice and hypocrisy. But I repeat myself.

P

[_harmony]

If you don't want people criticizing (mocking) what you hold dear, then don't drag it out in front of them and expect them to respect it. Keep it in your heart and shut the hell up.

You all are so damned confused or you just don't want to read my posts.

I don't care if you mock. I don't get offended. I don't get upset. I am not shocked. I am not concerned. MM, Harmony, Rollie, MS, mock all you want! More of it! It entertains me! Say anything you want, on any topic and I can respond if I have time or interest. Rollie: If you think that it is fundamentally wrong to assume that one should never criticize the brethren, then by all means let loose! Let her rip.

My point is and remains: You are cowards to mock (or criticize, if you choose) in a public forum anonymously. You are hypocrites if you do so and otherwise hold yourself out to be members in good standing.

The way all of you choose to respond to my challenge is to say the following: (1) you are not mocking. (2) criticism is not mocking. (3) it is OK to mock. (4) If I don't like mocking, the get the hell away from here.

You simply ignore my core point about your cowardice and hypocrisy. But I repeat myself.

P

I knew it. You had to bring me up sooner or later. Once more, Plu: those who need to know who I am know who I am. They have my real name, my phone number, my address, my email address. And if you don't know, it's because you don't need to know. Simple. No hypocrisy involved.

[_rcrocket]

I knew it. You had to bring me up sooner or later. Once more, Plu: those who need to know who I am know who I am. They have my real name, my phone number, my address, my email address. And if you don't know, it's because you don't need to know. Simple. No hypocrisy involved.

I am trying not to pick on you individually, but I align you with a class of persons who criticize the church anonymously but publicly but in their private lives attempt to appear to toe the line. Cowardice plus hypocrisy is really an evil thing. You just have self-defined away the meaning of hypocrisy, which compounds the evil.

That some of your personal friends and collaborators know whom you are really doesn't help your position.

P

[_wenglund]

You seem to have the same problem that some MAD believers do: they believe when other criticze their religion's truth claims or actions, those people are "telling people what to believe". What you, and these other folks are really demanding is that your religion's truth claims and behavior not be analyzed and criticized. You want to live in a bubble.

I defy you to provide even a single example where I have said anything of the sort. (I won't hold my breath because I know you can't. You are just firing blanks as a way of unsuccessfully deflecting attention away from yourself and your fellow naysayers)

You said (perhaps implicitly, and probably inadvertently), in another thread or two, that you get angry in a manner akin to "road rage" when anyone criticizes the Church, which, to you, is the "most precious and dear" thing in the whole universe.

I did mention that I have, in the past, been angered by ANTAGONISM against my faith (not to be confused with "criticism"). However, that cannot reasonably be interpreted as me thinking the antagonist are "telling people what to believe", nor can it reasonably be interpreted as me supposedly demanding that my religious truth claims and behavior not be analyzed or criticized.

That you may think it may be interpreted to suggest either or both those things, demonstrates to me yet again how unreasonable your thinking is, and what little value there is in discussing things with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I'm curious. According to some of you, are human beings required to show respect for all human beliefs, or only those attached to religious beliefs?

Previously asked by you (in so many words), and answered by me. Since you didn't listen then, why should I think you would listen now?

Thanks, -Wade

[_Yoda]

I knew it. You had to bring me up sooner or later. Once more, Plu: those who need to know who I am know who I am. They have my real name, my phone number, my address, my email address. And if you don't know, it's because you don't need to know. Simple. No hypocrisy involved.

I am trying not to pick on you individually, but I align you with a class of persons who criticize the church anonymously but publicly but in their private lives attempt to appear to toe the line. Cowardice plus hypocrisy is really an evil thing. You just have self-defined away the meaning of hypocrisy, which compounds the evil.

That some of your personal friends and collaborators know whom you are really doesn't help your position.

P

I think you're confusing hypocrisy with basic Internet protocol. We all use aliases on the Internet. It's a safety issue.

And who are you to say that she doesn't express her views publicly in her "real" life? You don't know her.

Besides, why is venting in an anonymous forum necessarily hypocritical? All of us think things that we really can't say around certain groups of people because it will offend them. If we're simply utilizing forums like this as a place to vent and possibly work through some thought processes, what is the harm? How are we combatting the Church? I don't understand that. Please explain.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If you think that it is fundamentally wrong to assume that one should never criticize the brethren, then by all means let loose! Let her rip.

Will do.

My point is and remains: You are cowards to mock (or criticize, if you choose) in a public forum anonymously.

Ah, your ol' fallback position: attack the messenger instead of address the message. There is neither mocking nor criticism here -- it is debate and open discussion of our unique experiences, observations, thoughts, opinions, etc. Just because you hate free thought and speech does not mean that attacking the messenger will change the facts one whit. Our thoughts, opinions, experiences, etc., will still exist whether you (or the SCMC) succeed in squashing the messenger. Truth just is, regardless of who proclaims it, so take your witch-hunt somewhere else.

You are hypocrites if you do so and otherwise hold yourself out to be members in good standing.

How are we not "members in good standing"? What gives you the right to stand in judgment?

You simply ignore my core point about your cowardice and hypocrisy.

Your "core point" is irrelevant. Rather than address the merits of the points debated on this bb, you instead consistently attack the messenger. The point of this bb is to openly and without restraint discuss our particular opinions, observations, experiences, beliefs, etc.; your sole mission here seems to be to muzzle said open discussion. If you don't care for open discussion, then why are you here?

[_truth dancer]

Hi P...

am trying not to pick on you individually, but I align you with a class of persons who criticize the church anonymously but publicly but in their private lives attempt to appear to toe the line.

Could you clarify this statement?

What do you mean some people publicly appear to "toe the line?" What do you think believers who have some difficulty with the church do? Start drinking in public? Put an add in the paper? Start sharing some information in GD class?

A person's personal choices, their church involvement, and their level of disclosure is between themselves and God. If they feel a need to share their concerns with the Bishop or other leaders it is there choice.

Why do you think believers on this board who may have some difficulty with various issues are not being open with others? Do you have evidence to suggest this is the case?

I'm not quite understanding why you think some posters are hypocrites.

~dancer~

[_beastie]

I did miss your answer to that question, Wade.

Wade actually directly answered a question and said:

There are certain behaviors, statements, and beliefs (secular or religious) that are not deserving of respect-bigotted behaviors, statements, and beliefs for example.

I don't think any human or human-related thing should be above criticism. But most are due reasonable and respectful criticism.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? It isn't the case that ALL beliefs, behaviors, statements are due reasonable and respectful criticism after all. Some are too ridiculous and/or offensive and dangerous. (I wonder if Plutarch will agree on this point) Personally, I don't think the "young earth" argument is due reasonable and respectful criticism, either, nor the "aliens in a volcano" because both are so completely disconnected to reality and science that believing in either is a sign of willful ignorance. So it all depends on a very subjective measure, doesn't it?

So the difference between us is not that Wade, and perhaps Plutarch, believes that people shouldn't mock in general, but that they don't agree that what is being mocked deserves to be mocked. That is largely due to your personal belief in the thing being mocked.

I mean, after all, if someone genuinely believed that people of color descended from "mud people", and this is an idea sanctioned by God, do you really think they would believe it deserves to be mocked? Or do you think those who really do believe that God is going to reward the suicide bombers with 72 virgins think that the mocking that takes place about that is justified? Or is it a sign of being Satanic and evil, to them?

It's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? What you really don't like is seeing your beliefs mocked. No one does.

I imagine the homosexuals you haunted on their own board didn't particularly like seeing you link homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia either, do you? They probably thought that your statements did nothing more than reveal your own bigotry. I happen to agree with that, by the way, because your statements went beyond mocking to extremely offensive, unfounded, disconnected with reality and resistant to change when presented evidence that reasonable people would accept. That seems far closer to the real definition of a bigot to me than someone who mocks isolated behaviors, statements or beliefs of a powerful group that has caused him/her quite a bit of grief and pain.

So help me know if you can tell the difference between mockery and criticism. Do you agree with Plutarch that the two examples of me, personally, "mocking" were really examples of mocking, or were they criticism?

[_beastie]

I think you're confusing hypocrisy with basic Internet protocol. We all use aliases on the Internet. It's a safety issue.

Of course it is internet protocol and a safety issue. I don't think it's coincidental, either, that it tends to be men who rag on about people who don't use their real names. While men may have safety concerns, it's not quite the same concern as it is for females.

Plutarch,

If you have a teenage daughter, are you going to encourage her to use her real name when/if she posts on an internet board or a chat room? If you say yes, you are a damned fool.