The Inferiority of Women

[Snow]

How, exactly, does this beg the question?

Do you know what it means to "beg the question"?

Yeah - I got your point the first time - it wasn't too subtle. You're smart and I am using the phrase in a non-traditional way.

Do you want to correct my spelling and punctuation now?

[Vort]

No Vort - because actions that are unjust and anti-benevolent do not jive with a God who is just and benevolent.

Therefore, a just and benevolent God only does just and benevolent things. (This does not necessarily logically follow, but I'm willing to accept it for the moment, since I believe it to be true as a general rule.)

Therefore, if God says or does something, it is just and benevolent.

Therefore, if God said the things as quoted in the Bible, then those things are...

That's right. Just and benevolent. Even if you don't like them.

And this is by your logical premise, Snow.

This isn't rocket science.

No, Smithers. It's brain surgery.

On what logical basis do you make your above judgment?

On NO basis since that is not my judgement - you just made it up.

So I just made up what you wrote when you claimed, "those who profess to believe in a just and benevolent God ought to be those who believe the opposite of the passages quoted in the Bible and the beliefs of those people printed above."

Am I understanding you correctly?

You have made a grand show of abhorring what you consider bad logic, yet I often see you leaping to conclusions that seem ill-founded, as you seem to have done above. Perhaps you can explain this to me. (Feel free to use small words, if you think I might understand better.)

Okay - let's see - perhaps you can explain it to me.

Uh, Snow, that sort of violates the idea that you might explain your logic to me. Responding to a request for explanation by saying, "Well, YOU explain it!" isn't very helpful.

Still, always looking to please, I'll do my best.

Can you tell me how unjust and anti-benevolent actions are congruent with a just and benevolent God?

Sure. God allows evil to happen when he might stop it -- yet if I allowed evil to happen when stopping it was within my grasp, I would be guilty of unjust and anti-benevolent actions. The difference is that God, being the Lawgiver, can judge better than I can. Since he actually makes the law, he gets to define the law however he sees fit. His actions constitute his definition of the law. Therefore, actions which would be unjust and anti-benevolent when done by Vort (or Snow) are not so when done by God.

Hope I haven't bored you to tears as I did with my judo example some time back. Just remember, you asked for it this time.

Or can you tell me how offering your virgin daughters up for rape is righteous?

Why, no. No, I can't.

And this has what to do with the topic?

By the way, I'm quite sure someone already pointed out to you that the JST gives a much different account of Lot's actions. Pity you continue to ignore it.

Now that I've responded to your post, care to go back and actually answer me?

[Vort]

Yeah - I got your point the first time - it wasn't too subtle. You're smart and I am using the phrase in a non-traditional way.

Do you want to correct my spelling and punctuation now?

If you want to pay me, I'd be happy to help clean up your copy. Or you could just type a bit slower and review when to use apostrophes.

By the way, yes, I recognized that you weren't using the phrase "beg the question" in any sort of traditional way (meaning the logical fallacy of assuming the truth of a proposition in the premises -- I'm sure you know this, since you're such a stickler for logic). However, I am also painfully aware of the common (and irritating) mistake that many make of using "beg the question" to mean "raise the question", as in, "When you tell me you were sick, that begs the question of whether you caught the flu."

What confused me is that your usage of the phrase "beg the question" was neither the traditional logical fallacy nor the erroneous-but-common "raise the question" usage. You seem to have invented a whole other special use for the phrase. I was just wondering what exactly you meant by it. Seriously, I have no idea what you were saying, and I wanted to know. There was actually nothing more to my question than that.

[Snow]

Therefore, a just and benevolent God only does just and benevolent things. (This does not necessarily logically follow, but I'm willing to accept it for the moment, since I believe it to be true as a general rule.)

Therefore, if God says or does something, it is just and benevolent.

Therefore, if God said the things as quoted in the Bible, then those things are...

That's right. Just and benevolent. Even if you don't like them.

And this is by your logical premise, Snow.

That's horrible logic and NOT my logical premise.

Saying something in a book does not mean that thing actually happened.

So I just made up what you wrote when you claimed, "those who profess to believe in a just and benevolent God ought to be those who believe the opposite of the passages quoted in the Bible and the beliefs of those people printed above."

Am I understanding you correctly?

Let me throw this out there for your benefit. I don't mind a bit of sophistry and good-natured twisting of words to get in a few gratuitous shots. But I don't have an unending tolerance for it. Feel free to post whatever you want but if you deliberately obfuscate and twist what I say, you can carry this discussion on solo.

As you know perfectly well I was responding, not to the point immediately above but rather your made up concept: "Are you suggesting that anyone who claims "to believe in a just and benevolent God" ought to accept your way of viewing things?" I am not suggesting any such thing.

Uh, Snow, that sort of violates the idea that you might explain your logic to me. Responding to a request for explanation by saying, "Well, YOU explain it!" isn't very helpful.

Still, always looking to please, I'll do my best.

Sure. God allows evil to happen when he might stop it -- yet if I allowed evil to happen when stopping it was within my grasp, I would be guilty of unjust and anti-benevolent actions.

No one is talking about "allowing" Not interfering with free choice is fundamental to the gospel. What we are talking about is causing or ordering evil - not allowing.

The difference is that God, being the Lawgiver, can judge better than I can. Since he actually makes the law, he gets to define the law however he sees fit. His actions constitute his definition of the law. Therefore, actions which would be unjust and anti-benevolent when done by Vort (or Snow) are not so when done by God.

Hope I haven't bored you to tears as I did with my judo example some time back. Just remember, you asked for it this time.

An appeal to mystery is no appeal at all - and saying that God is just anything God does, not matter how unjust, is just because He does it explains nothing.

Why, no. No, I can't.

And this has what to do with the topic?

You called my logic ill-founded. The point was that Lot was considered righteous and yet his actions were evil.

By the way, I'm quite sure someone already pointed out to you that the JST gives a much different account of Lot's actions. Pity you continue to ignore it.

Now that I've responded to your post, care to go back and actually answer me?

Had you read the thread you would know that I didn't ignore, your pity notwithstanding.

[Snow]

What confused me is that your usage of the phrase "beg the question" was neither the traditional logical fallacy nor the erroneous-but-common "raise the question" usage. You seem to have invented a whole other special use for the phrase. I was just wondering what exactly you meant by it. Seriously, I have no idea what you were saying, and I wanted to know. There was actually nothing more to my question than that.

Okay.

I can tell you that I sometimes make up words (which usually go unnoticed) and deliberately phrase things in an unorthodox way because I think the sound of it all somehow will make the point clear to the read regardless of traditional meaning. It seems to work.

[Vort]

Therefore, a just and benevolent God only does just and benevolent things. (This does not necessarily logically follow, but I'm willing to accept it for the moment, since I believe it to be true as a general rule.)

Therefore, if God says or does something, it is just and benevolent.

Therefore, if God said the things as quoted in the Bible, then those things are...

That's right. Just and benevolent. Even if you don't like them.

And this is by your logical premise, Snow.

That's horrible logic

Then please demonstrate to me where the logic breaks down. It looks perfectly valid to me.

and NOT my logical premise.

Indeed it was. You wrote: "No Vort - because actions that are unjust and anti-benevolent do not jive with a God who is just and benevolent."

Your words. Your premise.

Unless you are claiming that my restatement of your premise as "a just and benevolent God only does just and benevolent things" somehow does violence to your words, in which case we may need to have a discussion on the difference between the two, since they look almost identical to me.

Saying something in a book does not mean that thing actually happened.

Agreed. That's non sequitur; I didn't claim the Bible was necessarily correct. In fact, if you reread my words above, you'll see that they say, "Therefore, if God said the things as quoted in the Bible, etc." (Emphasis added for your benefit.)

Let me throw this out there for your benefit.

Nice to get some friendly conversation.

I don't mind a bit of sophistry and good-natured twisting of words to get in a few gratuitous shots.

In contrast, I very much do mind sophistry, and never engage in it. I am fine with a "good-natured" twisting of words, as long as it really is good-natured, and I occasionally will do so; but I will never use them "to get in a few gratuitous shots". That is dishonest.

But I don't have an unending tolerance for it. Feel free to post whatever you want but if you deliberately obfuscate and twist what I say, you can carry this discussion on solo.

Oh...so you weren't being friendly, you were threatening me.

Very well. Point taken. I would promise to straighten up and fly right, except that I'm not guilty of the things you wish to accuse me of.

As you know perfectly well I was responding, not to the point immediately above but rather your made up concept: "Are you suggesting that anyone who claims "to believe in a just and benevolent God" ought to accept your way of viewing things?"

Why, no. I didn't know this at all. It certainly wasn't clear from the presentation of your response.

The fact that you can follow your thought pattern in your response doesn't necessarily mean that I can do so. As a writer, you must make your response such that the reader can follow your line of thinking. Now, it's possible that I dropped the ball on that one, and that you wrote a perfectly understandable response that I simply missed. But I don't think so.

In any case, we appear to understand each other now. For my part, I won't threaten to walk away if you don't start expressing yourself more clearly (though I may do so if I get the feeling you're arguing for the sheer fun of the fight rather than to engage in honest give and take).

I am not suggesting any such thing.

Actually, I think you are saying exactly that, even if you don't see it in yourself. You claimed, and I quote:

"...those who profess to believe in a just and benevolent God ought to be those who believe the opposite of the passages quoted in the Bible and the beliefs of those people printed above."

Here, you are making a clear moral judgment: Those who believe God to be both just and benevolent ought to (i.e. are under a moral and logical obligation to) disbelieve both the Biblical passages you quoted and the opinions expressed by the men you quoted.

Your judgment is faulty. A man (or woman) can believe God to be both just and benevolent without having any moral or logical imperative to disbelieve the scriptures you cite or the opinions you quote. This can happen in any of a great number of ways. As a simple example, suppose a man (or woman) believes that women are a lesser creation than men, both in spiritual acumen and in divine eternal potential. Such a person could easily believe the opinions stated and still maintain belief in a completely just and benevolent God.

So why do you claim what you do? It seems obvious to me that you implicitly assume everyone else ought to accept your way of viewing things (for example, that women are not by nature inferior to men, either in present spiritual capacity or in ultimate divine potential). My mistake was in saying that you were "suggesting" this, when in fact you were assuming it, perhaps without even realizing you were doing so.

Can you tell me how unjust and anti-benevolent actions are congruent with a just and benevolent God?

God allows evil to happen when he might stop it -- yet if I allowed evil to happen when stopping it was within my grasp, I would be guilty of unjust and anti-benevolent actions.

No one is talking about "allowing"

I was. You asked me to explain the congruence between a just, benevolent God and unjust, anti-benevolent actions. I did so.

Not interfering with free choice is fundamental to the gospel.

Baloney. I interfere with my children's free choice all the time. The laws of the land interfere with my free choice, assuming my free choice would be to rape and pillage. Such interference is perfectly in keeping with gospel principles. The gospel sacrosanctity of "free choice" is a myth.

What we are talking about is causing or ordering evil - not allowing.

You are missing the point, Snow. Perhaps you are closing your eye to it.

If God does something, it's not evil. It's not unjust. It's not bad. It really does not make a particle of difference how much you think that it really is bad, or unjust, or evil. You are wrong.

An appeal to mystery is no appeal at all - and saying that God is just anything God does, not matter how unjust, is just because He does it explains nothing.

It's not an explanation. It's a definition. If "snow" is defined as "low-density, fluffy crystalline precipitate", then hail is not snow, no matter how vehemently you argue that it is. As long as you insist on defining "evil" based on your own perceptions rather than on God's, you run the risk of wrongly classifying a Godly action as "evil".

You called my logic ill-founded. The point was that Lot was considered righteous and yet his actions were evil.

But his actions were not evil, as Joseph Smith told us.

Had you read the thread you would know that I didn't ignore, your pity notwithstanding.

And yet you continue to claim Lot's actions as evil.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Vort
tpyo croretcion

[Vort]

I can tell you that I sometimes make up words (which usually go unnoticed) and deliberately phrase things in an unorthodox way because I think the sound of it all somehow will make the point clear to the read regardless of traditional meaning. It seems to work.

So you take the Humpty-Dumpty view of communication.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Hard to argue with that. And when I say "argue with", I mean "douse with gasoline and set on fire."

[pam]

While ancient Jewish culture in many ways held women in contempt - and attributed to God, in scripture, the abject female status, Christ, as you would expect, turned that uncivil culture on it’s head. He treated women as the equals of men in many ways. He existing flaunted rules.

My thoughts on this. Snow your original scriptures you posted showed a man's view of women. As you mentioned because they are "scripture" they are attributed to God. I can see how not everything in scripture can be attributed to Him. They were the laws of the day and of the time.

Christ did show a more modern view of His thoughts and views of women which I think were more in line with what Heavenly Father thought of as well. I can't for a moment think that either of them thought of women as inferior beings to men at all.

Through the years there have been many of the same thoughts of women. Unclean during their menstrual cycles, unclean after childbirth etc etc. I don't know if that is just ignorance of the times or perhaps still a following of what was said in scripture.

I think some of those thoughts are still alive today. Perhaps just culture, perhaps ignorance, perhaps those that still follow all that is said in the Bible as being literal.

But we know as LDS (and Snow knows this as well) that women are not treated or thought of as inferior. In fact extremely revered (sp) by our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

[Tarnished]

Baloney. I interfere with my children's free choice all the time. The laws of the land interfere with my free choice, assuming my free choice would be to rape and pillage. Such interference is perfectly in keeping with gospel principles. The gospel sacrosanctity of "free choice" is a myth.

The laws and your "interference" with your children's free choice doesn't actually interfere with free choice, instead they lay down consequences for choices made. For example, I can choose to rob a store, however the consequences for my choice are such that (even if it was my disposition to do so) I would not want to make that choice. However the choice is still mine.

The only way something could take away my free choice would be to force me to do something, such as locking me up. However, even then I still have my free choice allowed me for whatever choices I still have to make. For example, if I am in prison I can choose to change the way I view the world, or I can stay believing the way I do about it. I can choose to fight against my captors or I can wait for my imprisonment to end. The laws do not interfere with free choice, they just impose consequences for choices we may decide to make.

Back to the topic though, I also am confused as to why Snow acknowledged my comment on the JST of Lot's interaction and yet continues to use the version that is incorrectly translated. I am beginning to think that this thread it actually about the topic of "people disbelieve certain things in scripture because they see them as erroneous". Which I can definitely see. I, for instance, do not believe that we have the entirety of the Bible, I think we have a good portion, however, I do know that some of it has been lost. Because of this there are a good many passages in the Bible that I think are possibly missing parts to them. The JST shows this to be true. Taking the Lot scripture for an example we find that it is missing words that change the meaning entirely. And this comes from translating the Bible from the original Hebrew. It comes from every translated book that is out there, there are different translations that people can make from the original language, and these translations can be based on what the translator believed would make the text more understandable. Now considering that the text of the Bible was chopped up and put back together so many times, as well as being edited by a counsel, I do believe that there are parts missing. Does this cause it to become an uninspired text? No, but it does mean that there are some parts of the text that may not express exactly what the originally meant.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Tarnished
missing words

[Hemidakota]

Hey, Hemi. Can we get source on that? I'm a little wary of accepting this piece of knowledge, since John the Baptist was called 'Angelos', or messenger. I'm also pretty sure Haggai was(But don't quote me on that). John The Baptist, we know exactly where he lived and it wasn't the City of Salem(Well, it was Judea).

What does John the Baptist have to do with the City of Salem?

[Hemidakota]

Priesthood may not be the right word when it pretains to women but this says it very clearly.

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “God planted within women something divine.” That something is the gift and the gifts of motherhood. Elder Matthew Cowley taught that “men have to have something given to them [in mortality] to make them saviors of men, but not mothers, not women. [They] are born with an inherent right, an inherent authority, to be the saviors of human souls … and the regenerating force in the lives of God’s children.” (from a talk by Sister Shari Dew)

What is the purpose of PRIEST and PRIESTESS in the Celestial Kingdom?

[Hemidakota]

Salem, as has been indicated, was probably the headquarters of the church and the home of the presiding authorities of that organization. Who those authorities were is not revealed, but Dr. James E. Talmage raised a very interesting question in an editorial note appended to the article, "Abraham's Three Visitors," by Dr. Sidney B. Sperry in THE IMPROVEMENT ERA:

Who then were Abraham's three visitors at his encampment? They are not designated by name, but it is apparent that they were messengers sent by the Lord. I venture to express an opinion—an inference only for which I am personally and alone responsible—that the probabilities point to the great high priest, Melchizedek, and two associates who may have stood with him in the capacity of counselors.

The three beings in question were in all probability not "angels" but righteous men. The Hebrew says that three men, instead of three angels, visited Abraham. As for the title, Lords, it comes from adhon meaning Lord, a title of honor for men. The word Yhwh or Jehovah, which is often translated Lord (God) is not used to designate the three messengers.

The "Inspired Scriptures" states that "three men" visited Abraham and that he addressed them as "my brethren." The Prophet Joseph undoubtedly wrote angel in the text with the meaning of messenger in mind; since angel in the English, Greek, or Hebrew means messenger. Especially is this true in this instance. The idea of mortal messengers is further substantiated in Genesis 18:23. (Inspired Revision.)

And the angels which were holy men, and were sent forth after the order of God, [meaning the "Holy Priesthood, after the order of God"] turned their faces from thence and went toward Sodom.

If one substitutes the word messenger for angel in the Inspired Scriptures, he will find the principal difficulty in use of the names cleared up.

It is, therefore, highly probable that the three men who came to Abraham and partook of his hospitality were three servants of God to whom he revealed his will concerning the people. Furthermore, it is possible that this was Melchizedek who was called the great "high priest" because he presided over the Holy Priesthood as President of the Church in that day.

[Vort]

The laws and your "interference" with your children's free choice doesn't actually interfere with free choice, instead they lay down consequences for choices made. For example, I can choose to rob a store, however the consequences for my choice are such that (even if it was my disposition to do so) I would not want to make that choice. However the choice is still mine.

The only way something could take away my free choice would be to force me to do something, such as locking me up. However, even then I still have my free choice allowed me for whatever choices I still have to make. For example, if I am in prison I can choose to change the way I view the world, or I can stay believing the way I do about it. I can choose to fight against my captors or I can wait for my imprisonment to end. The laws do not interfere with free choice, they just impose consequences for choices we may decide to make.

Ergo, the whole idea of "interfering with free choice" or "taking away someone's agency" is a red herring. I agree.

[Gwen]

Then I challenge you to demonstrate that I have taken anything out of context. I suspect you will will not... because I haven't. The scriptures, in context, represent just how I presented them.

It is amazing to me that you would think simple referencing to scriptures - NOT taken out of context - is contentious. Admittedly they are controversial because some people believe the verses and some people do not, but there is nothing inherently contentious in the passages.

Furthermore, I am offended that you called me a troll, which I am not. I call your attention to the rules of this board: "name calling... will not be tolerated" and admonish you abide by the rules.

when you say something is from the scriptures without further background info you leave the underlying assumption that it is from god's mouth. i have never said that every word in the scriptures is from god's mouth. nor does anyone else. ever heard the phrase "the words written in red"? leaving the impression that is it from god's mouth is taking it out of the context.

again i did not say the scriptures were contentions. your method and the way you presented it is contentious.

i did not call you a troll and i apologize if i left that impression. i was responding to jd who said you were pulling ppl's chains and didn't subscribe to the opinion you posted. i see that behavior as troll like.

furthermore i'm offended that you suggest if someone decides to not respond to your comments you assume that it's because they can't and therefore you "win". sometimes they just decide that it's not worth the argument, it's not going to change their salvation and they have better things to do. in my opinion someone that knows when to quit wasting their time on a fruitless discussion comes out on top.

[pam]

Did anyone read Post #49 where Snow is attempting to explain the reason for this thread? He gave the rest of the story. But no one has responded to it. I think Snow makes a point here. Instead we want to continue with the attacks on both sides instead of getting to the REAL reason he posted this thread. I think it's a valid thread and worth discussing. Just my opinion. But he has gotten me to thinking how not everything in the Bible is attributed to God. That Christ turned some thinking around on the status of women. How our own modern day Prophets continue to promote the worthiness and importance of women.

Snow wants you to think outside the box. He has always done this. But let's stop the personal attacks on both sides and actually think about the reasons for posting threads. It's to make us think. It's to challenge us.

Edited April 30, 2009 by pam

[applepansy]

Did anyone read Post #49 where Snow is attempting to explain the reason for this thread? He gave the rest of the story. But no one has responded to it. I think Snow makes a point here. Instead we want to continue with the attacks on both sides instead of getting to the REAL reason he posted this thread. I think it's a valid thread and worth discussing. Just my opinion. But he has gotten me to thinking how not everything in the Bible is attributed to God. That Christ turned some thinking around on the status of women. How our own modern day Prophets continue to promote the worthiness and importance of women.

Snow wants you to think outside the box. He has always done this. But let's stop the personal attacks on both sides and actually think about the reasons for posting threads. It's to make us think. It's to challenge us.

Think outside the box? OK.

Snow responses have pushed me so far out of this box I have no desire to engage him in conversation.

[FunkyTown]

Did anyone read Post #49 where Snow is attempting to explain the reason for this thread? He gave the rest of the story. But no one has responded to it. I think Snow makes a point here. Instead we want to continue with the attacks on both sides instead of getting to the REAL reason he posted this thread. I think it's a valid thread and worth discussing. Just my opinion. But he has gotten me to thinking how not everything in the Bible is attributed to God. That Christ turned some thinking around on the status of women. How our own modern day Prophets continue to promote the worthiness and importance of women.

Snow wants you to think outside the box. He has always done this. But let's stop the personal attacks on both sides and actually think about the reasons for posting threads. It's to make us think. It's to challenge us.

I should point out, Pam, that Snow very rarely challenges people. Instead, he has a tendency to vomit up dozens of arguments, wait for responses, then say that one of his dozens of arguments wasn't addressed without answering any of the counterarguments made. Or he will simply not respond to people who make good points. Or he has a tendency to get insulting when someone disagrees with him. It's all rather silly and childish. It isn't especially challenging, it's merely aggressive self-aggrandizing claptrap for the most part.

Personal attacks aside, Pam, forget challenges. Forget what intentions are: Can you point out a single thread that has gone on more than three pages where he has not attacked, denigrated or insulted half the posters? Any thread which didn't devolve in to a meaningless morass of anti-social behaviour? Again, this thread would have to go on more than three pages. If you can point out... Say... 3 threads that haven't devolved to this in his 9 years of being here, posted prior to today, I promise not to interfere in any other of his threads nor to warn against his trolling. Can we find 3 threads in 9 years?

EDIT: Obviously, three pages Snow himself has engineered.

Edited April 30, 2009 by FunkyTown

[pam]

Let's start with this thread if you want an example. The discussion was going along quite nicely until he was challenged. All of a sudden we have comments about him being a troll..whether this thread was uplifting or of good report.

In Snow's response to Gwen. That was exactly the point he was trying to make with his OP. I don't see it as an attack against Gwen. I see it as Snow's way to try and draw out more of an understanding and to take it to the point he was trying to make. Which he explained in post #36.

Do I understand correctly that you do not believe the canonized scriptures I referenced are uplifting, virtuous, lovely or of good report?

How long have you felt this way about the scriptures?

So the thread moves along again. Then it turned to personal attacks again towards Snow. Snow attempts to explain it and bring it back to the reason for his thread. The next few posts are once again attacks. The attacks continue on both sides.

While I don't agree with condescending comments made on both sides...they are inappropriate, I do see that with this thread..Snow is not the one that provoked it.

[Hemidakota]

http://i.azjmp.com/0SbSY

[MarginOfError]

Vort, I have a piece of advice for you

[TruthSeekerToo]

As a woman this passage makes me feel very unloved and inferior.

D&C 132:64-65

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

My understanding is that the "law of Sarah" is getting permission from the first wife for other wives. If permission is refused the man is at liberty to take another wife anyway. Oh, and the first wife gets destroyed.

Yeah, and concubines are slave wives.

[pam]

I remember reading something about this recently. I'm trying to find it.

[Gwen]

In Snow's response to Gwen. That was exactly the point he was trying to make with his OP. I don't see it as an attack against Gwen. I see it as Snow's way to try and draw out more of an understanding and to take it to the point he was trying to make. Which he explained in post #36.

quote:Do I understand correctly that you do not believe the canonized scriptures I referenced are uplifting, virtuous, lovely or of good report?

How long have you felt this way about the scriptures?

i did see this as an attack against gwen. gwen's words were twisted to suggest she believed something she did not, same ploy used with the scriptures. it is offensive. yes gwen should have explained her thinking further in the 13th article of faith question and the troll comment and will accept that failure in comunication as her own.

[FunkyTown]

Let's start with this thread if you want an example. The discussion was going along quite nicely until he was challenged. All of a sudden we have comments about him being a troll..whether this thread was uplifting or of good report.

In Snow's response to Gwen. That was exactly the point he was trying to make with his OP. I don't see it as an attack against Gwen. I see it as Snow's way to try and draw out more of an understanding and to take it to the point he was trying to make. Which he explained in post #36.

So the thread moves along again. Then it turned to personal attacks again towards Snow. Snow attempts to explain it and bring it back to the reason for his thread. The next few posts are once again attacks. The attacks continue on both sides.

While I don't agree with condescending comments made on both sides...they are inappropriate, I do see that with this thread..Snow is not the one that provoked it.

You raise a good point Pam. I certainly didn't read any of Snow's posts before I jumped in, nor will I ever again.

However, I certainly did perceive people feeling he had insulted them and warned against his trolling. You know I think you are awesome, Pam, but I disagree with your assessment that he is not trolling. Before I made the decision to ignore everything he writes, I did a search to see if he had many posts that didn't descend to this sort of thing.

I couldn't find one where people didn't feel insulted. I have no doubt in 9 years he must have some, which is why I said to find 3. They simply aren't there.

Since clearly many agree, perhaps Snow should realize that his method of communicating on the net doesn't work?

In fact, i'm certain if he made a public posting saying something to the effect of, "i'm sorry i've come across as a bombastic troll. I didn't intend it and promise to be more communicative and less combative. Since tone doesn't translate on the net, I will be more logical, using point and counterpoint to establish something. I don't want to come across as dismissive and insulting."

Heck, i'd even read a post of his set as "I'm sorry".

If you feel it really is a case of him not meaning to cause offense, i'm certain he's willing to apologise for doing just that for a very long time. Sound fair, Pam?

[pam]

True story here. I had a Book of Mormon teacher at Ricks College. I thought he was the biggest jerk. He threw out totally random comments in class that made us think this guy can't possibly be teaching a Book of Mormon class at a Church college. We even reported him to administration. He was condescending, he belittled what students had to say.

Yet over the semester, he started to tie his comments together. We had to read and search and study to prove him wrong in his comments. Only to find out that what he was doing was exactly that. He wanted us to search, to pray, to read to prove him wrong. It was his teaching tactic. He ended up being the best teacher I ever had there at Ricks. I ended up taking two more classes of his. Of course I was more prepared knowing how and what he was doing in the subsequent classes I took from him. But I learned more from him than anyone that had ever taught me before.

Perhaps I see a little of that in Snow. Again while I don't approve of some of the remarks made as it's on a board and not in person where we have face to face contact and can discuss this more openly without having to rely on written word only. Just my 2 cents. Doesn't excuse I know, but just wanted you see where I'm getting my perspective from.