Elizabeth Smart: New Movie, New Baby

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed...  While Elizabeth Smart pointed out the damage that can be done from the incorrect teaching of the Doctrine... She points out that it was the correct teaching of the Doctrine is what helped her get through her trial and see past the incorrect teachings... The latter part is commonly omitted.

My thoughts completely. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, anatess2 said:

No.  Someone who puts Elizabeth Smarts quote out of context THEN expresses his disagreement with the out-of-context quote is dishonest.  It does not have to be done intentionally.

Just calling you out on it so you can correct yourself.  Or not.

 

And you painted my view incorrectly and then attacked it. I'm not going to call that dishonest though, because it isn't. You just misunderstand. If you can figure it out then we can discuss. Until then, I have little more to say to you on the matter.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And you painted my view incorrectly and then attacked it. I'm not going to call that dishonest though, because it isn't. You just misunderstand. If you can figure it out then we can discuss. Until then, I have little more to say to you on the matter.

If you were... say... LiterateParakeet, I'd discuss.  But since you're The Folk Prophet, I'm not gonna bother.  My head likes to avoid brick walls.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If you were... say... LiterateParakeet, I'd discuss.  But since you're The Folk Prophet, I'm not gonna bother.  My head likes to avoid brick walls.

Says the brickiest wall of them all.

If there's one person who's more "stubborn" than me.... Which I always find funny. The people who call me stubborn are always the others who are most stubborn.

Seriously. You don't want to discuss. You want to paint my view as "dishonest". How can I discuss things with you if you're going to take that sort of attitude? And what sort of response do you really expect. "Oh...thanks. I didn't realize I was being dishonest. My bad."

Frankly, it's frustrating to be treated by someone like I'm too dumb to see the forest through the trees. I've grown tired of that sort of "discussion". If that's what you think and you can't figure out what I'm really seeing instead of just casting my view as "dishonest" (which, apparently, you mean "blind", because dishonest requires intentional deceit), then what good is discussion anyhow?

I could try breaking it down for you. I could point out how Vort had said he agreed with "exactly" what Elizabeth Smart said, and my quote was a question for clarification, and not "proof" of anything, but actually a "discussion", to which he replied (in the manner of real discussions), "I think the wording is unfortunate." etc. And I understood more on his thinking. Actual conversation. Actual learning. Wow.

I could point out how you then went off on a tangent by calling the statement out of context because the statement itself wasn't the point.

I could explain how my real problem is with the way people can take these things so easily out of context, and how the overall message comes across as negative instead of positive. I could continue to explain that by giving examples such as, "The law of chastity is wonderful and purity and virtue are wonderful things. We should teach purity and virtue more, but let's insure we teach them accurately." is a positive message and, "when we teach purity we hurt people" is a negative message.

I could re-iterate how much more care we need to be taking in the current battle-against-all-virtue environment we live in to not accidentally condemn something we didn't mean to. I could go on and on saying many things I've already said.

But you have latched onto this out-of-context thing and painted me dishonest. So why would I assume that doing any of this would have any effect on your attitude toward my views in this matter?

[anatess2]

But did Mexico pay for it?

Edited April 21, 2017 by anatess2