Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

Edited to add more information for posters:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Christ and Satan are brothers....Mormon answers...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by dianaiad View Post

    Yes, Bonnie, you DID. I gave you the quote, and I gave you the reference TO that quote. That's what "THE non-Mormons on here" MEANS, that is, 'the set of all people who are not Mormon on here).



    there was no 'us' in that quote, Bonnie. Here it is again: 'And is comparing the non-Mormons on here to Islamic jihad "walking the walk"? Is that Jesus would want anyone to do? Write those things?"



    Bonnie, if you didn't mean to write what you wrote in that quote, and it was a mistake, just say so. It's OK. We all make goofs when we write, especially when we are writing on a forum where emotions can run high and one might write before one thinks or reads the post to which we are reacting clearly.

    I really don't care whether you think 'jihadist' is offensive to you when applied to ANYONE...even though I'm quite certain you don't have a problem with using it to describe Muslim religious terrorists.

    I think 'jihadist' is a perfectly reasonable word to use to describe people who will use any method available to defeat the group or belief they oppose, up to and including physical violence. It doesn't matter whether those people are Muslim, Atheist Maoists, Catholics, Protestants, or Evangelical Christians going off the reservation. If they are willing to use physical violence and force in order to further their agenda, and it is 'in the name of God,' (as it is when one opposes someone else's RELIGIOUS beliefs because they differ from one's own) then 'holy warrior' is the right term, and that is 'jihadist' in Arabic. It is a suitable term.

    Now can you honestly tell me that NOBODY on this forum has EVER threatened to commit a physical act of violence against Mormons, has never APPROVED of someone else's threat..or actual action..or wished that they could have gone back and participated in, say...the mob that killed JS and HS?

    You can't do that, of course. You know very well that they have. Not many, but two or three....and they were dead serious when they did it, too. Those people are jihadists, by definition, just as people who use unethical and immoral methods to defeat their targets are antis.

    They aren't jihadists and antis because I disagree with them and may not like them much. I disagree with them and may not like them much because they behave in ways that qualify them for the anti and jihadist label. The solution, for those who don't like being CALLED those things, is to....

    .......don't behave in ways that qualify them for the label. There ARE critics in here who manage to stay out of the anti folder, and MOST of them manage to avoid 'jihadist,' as well. My suggestion is that those who behave like antis and jihadists follow the example of the critics, calm down, stop using the 'baby killer' memes, and then, when some Mormon goes overboard and calls a critic an 'anti,' they can be righteous in taking offense. At the moment, however....

    I'm sorry, but getting all bent out of shape over 'anti,' and 'jihadist,' when the rhetoric coming FROM those tender souls is so.....witch hunter horrific...is not a credible or reasonable thing to do.

    In fact, it's downright ludicrous.
    I already said you wrote some, not all. And the ones accused were non-Mormond. But MY point, is that NO ONE on here deserved to be called jihadists, or compared to them. And the other things said about them. That is MY point. All I see on here is avoiding that fact.
    "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
    "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
    "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
    "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Magdalena View Post

      See? You just did it again... "YOU people." When you make accusations, you make them in a way that includes everyone. And then you backtrack later and deny that everyone fits that category. And we should somehow just know who you're talking about. It's all just a bunch of hot air to cover up insults.
      What was there about 'at least, the vast majority of you?" COMPLETELY WENT OVER YOUR HEADS?
      Any forum member can respond to any post here. When I use "you," it is ALWAYS plural, and does NOT refer to a specific person unless I make that clear by writing 'you (specific name) are an (insert opinion)."

      Comment


      • #33
        More posts moved from LDS forum due to bickering/off topic complaints.
        * "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
        * "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6). NASB

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

          I already said you wrote some, not all. And the ones accused were non-Mormond. But MY point, is that NO ONE on here deserved to be called jihadists, or compared to them. And the other things said about them. That is MY point. All I see on here is avoiding that fact.
          What does this have to do with my thread... please take your issues else where and comment on the topic... thanks..

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Ralf View Post

            What does this have to do with my thread... please take your issues else where and comment on the topic... thanks..
            Tell your Mormon friend that, as well, Ralf. Fair is fair. And in case you didn't notice, these posts got moved to whining board.

            And I HAVE commented on the topic.
            "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
            "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
            "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
            "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by dianaiad View Post

              Ah, the 'two wrongs don't make a right' argument.

              Well, here's the problem. You folks think that we are all wrong, all evil, baby killers, murderers, Satan worshipers, pedophile followers, occultists...and the list goes on and on. Why do you sit there attempting to hold us to a standard you folks don't even SEE, much less hold to?

              Perhaps we can be criticized for responding by calling those who call US by the above epithets '*************," or even...to those who threaten to sic their dogs on us or who applaud that action...'jihadist,' but I honestly don't see how the rhetoric can be remotely seen as equivalent.

              Be that as it may, however, if two wrongs don't make a right, what about the FIRST one? Remember that responding in a manner that you guys don't like may be worth criticizing, but we wouldn't be doing that if you guys weren't calling us 'baby killers, murderers, Satan worshipers, pedophile followers, occultits,.." FIRST.

              So this really is a mote and beam thing. First take the beam (baby killer...and on and on) out of your own keyboards, and THEN you can criticize the mote (************...REALLY? And "jihadist,' for those who threaten physical harm to us simply because our beliefs are different?) that is in our responses.

              I truly hate double standards and hypocrisy, and I see both in a great many posts written by the antis in here. In fact, that's one of the things that makes them antis.
              Ah, I noticed the "you folks" on here--twice. NOT "some of you folks" or "a few of you folks" but "YOU FOLKS." Doing the exact same thing we are accused supposedly of doing. Double Standard, anyone?

              But do show us where anyone called Mormons baby-killers. OR murderers (outside of MMM).

              Sorry, but some in Mormonism have big beams in their eyes they need to take out FIRST. And realize that it isn't right to answer in kind, to give tit for tat--no matter what the provocation.
              "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
              "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
              "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
              "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                I already said you wrote some, not all. And the ones accused were non-Mormond. But MY point, is that NO ONE on here deserved to be called jihadists, or compared to them. And the other things said about them. That is MY point. All I see on here is avoiding that fact.
                Yes. two or three of you (posters to the CARM forum who oppose Mormonism/Mormons) absolutely do.
                One poster...and you have already referred to him, said that he would have been happy to have joined the mob at Carthage and participated in the shooting. That is not just 'jihadist,' but outright terrorist. As you have also mentioned, we haven't seen him in quite awhile.
                Another threatened to have me escorted out of her services in hand cuffs, approved her friend's actions in siccing her dog on the missionaries and approved of 'disappearing' people.
                A third applauded poster #2 and talked about siccing dogs herself...though in all honesty I don't believe she was quite as serious as poster #2, since she is prone to emotional and overwrought rhetoric as well as overblown insults. Still, she did write about it and supported #2 more than once.

                You know this...you attempted to calm things down even though you ordinarily sit back and tacitly approved the writings of both posters.

                These are jihadists. By definition. They deserve to be called jihadists because they BEHAVE that way. If they don't produce the fruit that identifies the 'tree,' then the name of the 'tree' (jihadism) isn't theirs and they don't deserve it.

                However, 'by their fruit ye shall know them,' both for good and bad. "Fruits' are ACTIONS. If one behaves in a way that identifies them as belonging to a certain group, then calling them by the name of that group is not an insult. It's a statement of fact.

                Just like when someone behaves in ways that show that they are 'antis,' then calling them that is simply a statement of fact, not insult.

                Though in all honesty, if I identify someone who behaves in a way that puts them in anti category, it is definitely, from me, an indication of contempt.

                It is why I am very careful about where I apply those labels....only with those who have shown that they absolutely deserve them.
                Any forum member can respond to any post here. When I use "you," it is ALWAYS plural, and does NOT refer to a specific person unless I make that clear by writing 'you (specific name) are an (insert opinion)."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by dianaiad View Post

                  Yes. two or three of you (posters to the CARM forum who oppose Mormonism/Mormons) absolutely do.
                  One poster...and you have already referred to him, said that he would have been happy to have joined the mob at Carthage and participated in the shooting. That is not just 'jihadist,' but outright terrorist. As you have also mentioned, we haven't seen him in quite awhile.
                  Another threatened to have me escorted out of her services in hand cuffs, approved her friend's actions in siccing her dog on the missionaries and approved of 'disappearing' people.
                  A third applauded poster #2 and talked about siccing dogs herself...though in all honesty I don't believe she was quite as serious as poster #2, since she is prone to emotional and overwrought rhetoric as well as overblown insults. Still, she did write about it and supported #2 more than once.

                  You know this...you attempted to calm things down even though you ordinarily sit back and tacitly approved the writings of both posters.

                  These are jihadists. By definition. They deserve to be called jihadists because they BEHAVE that way. If they don't produce the fruit that identifies the 'tree,' then the name of the 'tree' (jihadism) isn't theirs and they don't deserve it.

                  However, 'by their fruit ye shall know them,' both for good and bad. "Fruits' are ACTIONS. If one behaves in a way that identifies them as belonging to a certain group, then calling them by the name of that group is not an insult. It's a statement of fact.

                  Just like when someone behaves in ways that show that they are 'antis,' then calling them that is simply a statement of fact, not insult.

                  Though in all honesty, if I identify someone who behaves in a way that puts them in anti category, it is definitely, from me, an indication of contempt.

                  It is why I am very careful about where I apply those labels....only with those who have shown that they absolutely deserve them.
                  Not as careful as you think!

                  But that isn't what is in your post....it says "YOU FOLKS"--twice. Which is the same thing I was accused of having in MY posts, when I wrote "non-Mormons" and "us" instead of "some non-Mormons" or "some of us." OR a "few of us.




                  And yet, THIS is in post # 31 on here: "I truly hate double standards and hypocrisy".

                  Well, so do I. Which is why I am writing this post.

                  Yet, here is a perfect example of a double standard--a poster complains I used "non-Mormons" and "us" when the poster only meant a few of us or some, but then turns around and refers to us as a blanket "you folks"--not "a few of you folks" or "some of you folks." But I guess that is okay--right?

                  So, if someone were to call Mormons "anti-Christians" that wouldn't be an insult but a "statement of fact"?

                  Also, in the same post:

                  "You folks" is the standard 'you,' and refers, not to the individual posters, but that set of posters who are on the 'opposite side' of the Mormons in here, and does not necessarily mean that list of all non-Mormons who have posted in here by name....and who, if I were to list their names as you just have, would net me an infraction.

                  So, we are expected to read your mind, to know what you meant when you wrote "you folks"???

                  And yet, this is basically what I meant when I wrote "us" and "non-Mormons" without the qualifiers "some" or "a few." I was accused of saying the Mormon poster meant ALL of us non-Mormons on here, rather than just a few. that the poster was referring to.

                  https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/ot...s?q=individual

                  As for Carthage jail, two years ago I was told by a Mormon poster on here that if I had been at that Carthage jail, I would have been cheering on those who were murdering JS. Was that bearing "good fruit"?

                  And DO show us where any non-Mormon called Mormons "baby-killers." Or murderers, outside of MMM. If you cannot, then that means that is an unfounded accusation--right? Is that bearing good "fruit"?

                  And where do I "sit back and tacitly approve " of such posts as you mention? Remember, we cannot nanny the boards. We cannot tell others how to post on here. We can only alert if we see rule violations.

                  But again, what you appear to be saying basically is that "look what they made us do!" So, that makes it okay to answer in kind--right? Okay to give "tit for tat"? Right? Jesus Christ would approve of that--right?

                  Same old, same old....you can try to justify the use of "jihad/jihadist" till the cows come home, but there is no justification for it. And other nasty things were said in that post and a couple of others, that got deleted. NO justification whatsoever.
                  Last edited by Bonnie; 08-09-17, 12:24 PM.
                  "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                  "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                  "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                  "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                    But that isn't what is your post....it says "YOU FOLKS"--twice. Which is the same thing I was accused of having in MY posts, when I wrote "non-Mormons" and "us" instead of "some non-Mormons" or "some of us." OR a "few of us."

                    Double standard, anyone?

                    So, if someone were to call Mormons "anti-Christians" that wouldn't be an insult but a "statement of fact"?

                    As for Carthage jail, two years ago I was told by a Mormon poster on here that if I had been at that Carthage jail, I would have been cheering on those who were murdered JS. I was outraged and alerted on that post and it got deleted and I hop the poster got an infraction. He/she deserved it.

                    And where do I "sit back and tacitly approve " of such posts as you mention? Remember, we cannot nanny the boards. We cannot tell others how to post on here. We can only alert if we see rule violations.

                    But again, what you appear to be saying basically is that "look what they made us do!" So, it is okay to answer in kind--right? Okay to give "tit for tat"? Right? Jesus Christ would approve of that--right?

                    Same old, same old....
                    OK, this is stupid. I would change my sig file if it allowed me enough words, to explain the terms. "YOU FOLKS" means "the set of people who share certain characteristics, in this case, posting on CARM in opposition to Mormonism and who share agreement upon what methods are acceptable in this opposition. When in that same post a qualification is made to narrow that down to 'those who believe that certain ******* measures are acceptable" then context is important.

                    Especially when further posts explain the the further narrowing, while not denying the actual words written...you know, the way you are doing with the way you said 'THE Mormons on here?"

                    Even though you never did acknowledge that yes, you actually wrote that, you did tell me what you MEANT by that, and you know what? I ACCEPTED that explanation.

                    ..................and you accuse US of double standards?
                    Any forum member can respond to any post here. When I use "you," it is ALWAYS plural, and does NOT refer to a specific person unless I make that clear by writing 'you (specific name) are an (insert opinion)."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by dianaiad View Post

                      OK, this is stupid. I would change my sig file if it allowed me enough words, to explain the terms. "YOU FOLKS" means "the set of people who share certain characteristics, in this case, posting on CARM in opposition to Mormonism and who share agreement upon what methods are acceptable in this opposition. When in that same post a qualification is made to narrow that down to 'those who believe that certain ******* measures are acceptable" then context is important.

                      Especially when further posts explain the the further narrowing, while not denying the actual words written...you know, the way you are doing with the way you said 'THE Mormons on here?"

                      Even though you never did acknowledge that yes, you actually wrote that, you did tell me what you MEANT by that, and you know what? I ACCEPTED that explanation.

                      ..................and you accuse US of double standards?
                      That's nice, dianaiad, but then why the annoyance with ME for writing "non-Mormons" and "us" instead of "SOME non-Mormons" and "SOME/few of us"? When I too was ONLY referring to that subset of posters you claimed went overboard and referred to as "jihadists"? And when I explained in another post to you that I meant just those few?

                      So, how is I did different than what you wrote?

                      This anyone?



                      I understand what you are saying and that you only meant a few on here but the point is, you lambasted ME for doing the same thing that we have pointed out that you did. Even after I explained what I meant, the complaint went on.

                      Time to drop it, if you ask me.

                      Oh, and I went through my emails and found a post I had archived, in which a Mormon asked what the difference was between the Christians who go overboard on here and those people who burned alive a couple of suspected terrorists or those who did terrible violence against some people who burned up a box of bibles--which didn't prevent the recipients from receiving them, anyway, since more went out?

                      SOOOOOOO....some few on here that tend to go overboard are no different than cold-blooded murderers and others who commit terrible violence, eh? So, those posters who get too sarcastic on here are no different than cold-blooded murderers? Is that it? So, those who make stupid jokes on here about gators and handcuffs and such are no different than a cold-blooded murderer?

                      REALLY?

                      Strange and grossly exaggerated comparison, don't you think?

                      Are you still getting chemotherapy on Tuesdays? Because I think you were on the boards fairly early Tuesday morning and I thought that was when you got your chemo. How are you feeling?
                      Last edited by Bonnie; 08-10-17, 09:56 AM.
                      "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                      "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                      "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                      "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                        That's nice, dianaiad, but then why the annoyance with ME for writing "non-Mormons" and "us" instead of "SOME non-Mormons" and "SOME/few of us"? When I too was ONLY referring to that subset of posters you claimed went overboard and referred to as "jihadists"? And when I explained in another post to you that I meant just those few?

                        So, how is I did different than what you wrote?

                        This anyone?



                        I understand what you are saying and that you only meant a few on here but the point is, you lambasted ME for doing the same thing that we have pointed out that you did. Even after I explained what I meant, the complaint went on.

                        Time to drop it, if you ask me.

                        Oh, and I went through my emails and found a post I had archived, in which a Mormon asked what the difference was between the Christians who go overboard on here and those people who burned alive a couple of suspected terrorists or those who did terrible violence against some people who burned up a box of bibles--which didn't prevent the recipients from receiving them, anyway, since more went out?

                        SOOOOOOO....some few on here that tend to go overboard are no different than cold-blooded murderers and others who commit terrible violence, eh? So, those posters who get too sarcastic on here are no different than cold-blooded murderers? Is that it? So, those who make stupid jokes on here about gators and handcuffs and such are no different than a cold-blooded murderer?

                        REALLY?

                        Strange and grossly exaggerated comparison, don't you think?

                        Are you still getting chemotherapy on Tuesdays? Because I think you were on the boards fairly early Tuesday morning and I thought that was when you got your chemo. How are you feeling?
                        OK, I do believe that those who go overboard on here are EXACTLY the same as those who rioted...and I do have that post as well, since I wrote it...about that case of mistakenly burnt bibles, and badly injured a cop, and those who rioted and burned two suspected terrorists alive. The one who said he would have loved to have been a part of the mob that killed JS is EXACTLY like the folks who burned those suspected terrorists; he did exactly the same thing. That is, he wished he could have and who are we to call him a liar about that?

                        Those who post here and threaten to handcuff someone for attending church services, who support and actually personally threaten with violence (dogs, remember) and are PROUD of talking about 'disappearing' people and an intent to feed others to alligators...the only difference between them and the rioters who protested the book destruction is opportunity.

                        Certainly, terrorists in THIS nation are put on watchlists, and identified as such, BEFORE they act. They are put on such lists and labeled because of what they freely say and write. Why shouldn't we believe that they would act according to their words? Freedom of speech gives us the right to say what we want to say. It doesn't give us freedom from the natural consequences of what we say, so if someone says that they had/would sic their dogs on someone because of different religious beliefs, then we have not only the right, but the obligation to believe that they mean it--and so categorize them as what they are showing themselves to be.

                        So, if someone writes that they would haul someone off in handcuffs, sic dogs on us, or support those who would, then....yeah. That sort of rhetoric puts them in a whole 'nuther state of opposition, one that cannot reasonably be dismissed as mere 'criticism,' or even 'anti,' at least on the lower levels of that particular term. For me, 'jihadist' works just fine...but only for those who have proposed, or supported, physical violence in support of defeating a different religious belief.
                        Any forum member can respond to any post here. When I use "you," it is ALWAYS plural, and does NOT refer to a specific person unless I make that clear by writing 'you (specific name) are an (insert opinion)."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by dianaiad View Post

                          OK, I do believe that those who go overboard on here are EXACTLY the same as those who rioted...and I do have that post as well, since I wrote it...about that case of mistakenly burnt bibles, and badly injured a cop, and those who rioted and burned two suspected terrorists alive. The one who said he would have loved to have been a part of the mob that killed JS is EXACTLY like the folks who burned those suspected terrorists; he did exactly the same thing. That is, he wished he could have and who are we to call him a liar about that?

                          Those who post here and threaten to handcuff someone for attending church services, who support and actually personally threaten with violence (dogs, remember) and are PROUD of talking about 'disappearing' people and an intent to feed others to alligators...the only difference between them and the rioters who protested the book destruction is opportunity.

                          Certainly, terrorists in THIS nation are put on watchlists, and identified as such, BEFORE they act. They are put on such lists and labeled because of what they freely say and write. Why shouldn't we believe that they would act according to their words? Freedom of speech gives us the right to say what we want to say. It doesn't give us freedom from the natural consequences of what we say, so if someone says that they had/would sic their dogs on someone because of different religious beliefs, then we have not only the right, but the obligation to believe that they mean it--and so categorize them as what they are showing themselves to be.

                          So, if someone writes that they would haul someone off in handcuffs, sic dogs on us, or support those who would, then....yeah. That sort of rhetoric puts them in a whole 'nuther state of opposition, one that cannot reasonably be dismissed as mere 'criticism,' or even 'anti,' at least on the lower levels of that particular term. For me, 'jihadist' works just fine...but only for those who have proposed, or supported, physical violence in support of defeating a different religious belief.
                          Sorry, but it was about more people on here than the guy who said he would have been cheering on the mob at the Carthage jail. Here is your quote in full, in the quote box:

                          https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/cu...ormonism/page2

                          DO note the plural. The word isn't censored but I won't repeat it here. And the only difference between those on here and those who killed those two people and rioted over burned bibles is "numbers and opportunity"? Really? The people you refer on here that go overboard would murder Mormons in cold blood and savagely beat and nearly kill them--IF they were in sufficient numbers and given the opportunity?

                          you know this, HOW? Mind reader are you?

                          This entire post in the link in the quote is an example of a post going 'way, 'way overboard.

                          And the person who said he would have supported the rioters is no longer on this board. The other one--I don't know. But I found the posts about handcuffs and alligators deplorable. Even if a joke, it was a very bad one and in very poor taste.

                          But the stuff in the link in the quote is still over the top. And doing the same thing some of us are accused of doing.
                          Last edited by Bonnie; 08-10-17, 06:51 PM.
                          "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                          "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                          "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                          "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                            Sorry, but it was about more people on here than the guy who said he would have been cheering on the mob at the Carthage jail. Here is your quote in full, in the quote box:

                            https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/cu...ormonism/page2

                            DO note the plural. The word isn't censored but I won't repeat it here. And the only difference between those on here and those who killed those two people and rioted over burned bibles is "numbers and opportunity"? Really?
                            I think so. Remember that the book burning riots didn't end up with anybody dead. At least, I don't remember that in the news report. I honestly believe that someone who would sic their dogs on someone (a felony assault, btw) drag someone off in handcuffs for attending a church service (also a felony) and who not only bragged about, but approved, the actions of her neighbors in possibly having 'disappeared' a gay person and making jokes about feeding someone else to alligators (not a crime to talk, but just.......icky) WOULD, if they thought they could get away with it and were caught up in the moment, join just such mobs. Why not? They have shown themselves quite willing to do so.

                            Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                            he people you refer on here that go overboard would murder Mormons in cold blood and savagely beat and nearly kill them--IF they were in sufficient numbers and given the opportunity?
                            The one who talked about setting dogs on missionaries and explicitly approved of and joked about murder?

                            Yes.

                            Mobs like this are generally formed of people who do a lot of talking first. As well, mobs are made up of people who do a lot of talking first...while convincing themselves that they were simply joking and wouldn't REALLY do that (except, of course, if they meant it about the dogs, they are certainly a step closer than most) and who probably would NOT go about killing people if there were NOT sufficient numbers of like minded people and the opportunity. Do you really think that the members of the groups that killed those suspected (and let's be honest, they may well have been right about the guilt of the men they killed...at least they certainly thought so) terrorists, or the ones who rioted over the books, would have gone around as INDIVIDUALS and committed that sort of violence?

                            That's not the way it works. Mobs do what individuals generally don't do. However, mobs very seldom include individuals who are set against the thing the mob is after. People who join mobs do so in order to have the social and cultural support of whatever it is they want to do, giving them freedom to overcome the societal inhibitions that would have prevented them from...oh...turning over police cars, stabbing officers, setting people on fire...like that.

                            Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                            you know this, HOW? Mind reader are you?
                            Just a student of mobs and what makes them tick.

                            Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                            This entire post in the link in the quote is an example of a post going 'way, 'way overboard.
                            Is it?

                            Bonnie, the people who joined the mobs within the last year...all those Christians...do you honestly think that INDIVIDUALLY, those Christians would have behaved that way?

                            Over BOOKS?

                            Now, the terrorist thing was different, the motive was far stronger (those suspected terrorists had, evidently, burned churches and killed many Christians in so doing), but even so, the terrorists were UNDER ARREST and were being transported to trial...a trial in which they were fully expected to be found guilty...and several members of the mob involved in the prisoner's deaths justified their actions because a: they WERE the correct terrorists and b: they thought that said terrorists would 'get away with it."

                            Does THAT scenario sound familiar?

                            However, do you think that any of those mob members, by themselves, would have behaved in that manner?

                            No; doing so takes numbers, mutual encouragement to ratchet up the willingness and rage. However, it BEGINS with people who are already of that accepting mindset. Someone who would NOT sic dogs on someone because of religious differences would not be found in such a mob. The members of such mobs join them because they already have that mindset, and give themselves over to mob-think.
                            Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                            And the person who said he would have supported the rioters is no longer on this board.
                            I know. I mentioned that.

                            Several times.

                            Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                            The other one--I don't know. But I found the posts about handcuffs and alligators deplorable. Even if a joke, it was a very bad one and in very poor taste. I apologize for them.
                            You don't have to. You didn't do it, and you, Bonnie, were about the only critic in here who expressed any opposition to their words. No apology is necessary.

                            Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                            But the stuff in the link in the quote is still over the top. And doing the same thing some of us are accused of doing.

                            Bonnie, you made an error and referred to "The Mormons on here," which on the face of it MEANS 'all Mormons on here." I have accepted that you didn't MEAN 'all Mormons in here," even though the words you wrote could mean nothing else. You didn't intend them to mean that, and you explained it.

                            I accepted that, even though you never have acknowledged that 'the Mormons on here" can only be interpreted as 'the set of all Mormons on here."

                            this stuff happens. I believe you when you say you didn't mean that.

                            Now how about you do the same for me?
                            Last edited by dianaiad; 08-10-17, 07:18 PM.
                            Any forum member can respond to any post here. When I use "you," it is ALWAYS plural, and does NOT refer to a specific person unless I make that clear by writing 'you (specific name) are an (insert opinion)."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              <<snip>>

                              I am tired of the complaining and double-standard I see on here.

                              You wrote: "you never have acknowledged that 'the Mormons on here' can only be interpreted as 'the set of all Mormons on here.'" I will NOT acknowledge that because it is NOT true it can be interpreted ONLY to mean ALL Mormons on the board. Especially when I DID explain myself further. Which is conveniently forgotten.

                              Now suppose YOU admit that "you folks" can ONLY be interpreted as the "set of all non-Mormons on here."

                              If not, then that is just more of this:





                              "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                              "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                              "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                              "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                                <<snip>>

                                I am tired of the complaining and double-standard I see on here.

                                You wrote: "you never have acknowledged that 'the Mormons on here' can only be interpreted as 'the set of all Mormons on here.'" I will NOT acknowledge that because it is NOT true it can be interpreted ONLY to mean ALL Mormons on the board. Especially when I DID explain myself further. Which is conveniently forgotten.

                                Now suppose YOU admit that "you folks" can ONLY be interpreted as the "set of all non-Mormons on here."

                                If not, then that is just more of this:




                                Here is where I explained myself about what I meant:

                                https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/ot...wers?q=Mormond

                                "I already said you wrote some, not all."

                                Post no. 16.

                                So kindly stop with trying to get me to admit something I already admitted to. NOW let us see you admit to having written "you folks."
                                "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                                "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                                "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                                "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X