No more games in Sacrament

[mgridle]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

You've got a forked tongue and the backtracking doesn't change the facts.  Personally, I'd have locked your account for personally attacking a Bishop, or any other member, rather than the message.  I still have that new Mormon smell, though, so I'm less forgiving and loving than my brothers and sisters.  

Just great. Personal attack.  I didn't personally attack you, but you feel it okay to personally attack me.  Lovely.

No forked tongue at all.  I'm not backtracking in least bit.

First you say, apologize, then when I say I stand by what I said with the information I had at the time and now that more information has come out I have no opinion on the matter, you say I'm backtracking?

So which is it dude?  Maybe you should take a look in the mirror.

Edited May 2, 2018 by mgridle

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, mgridle said:

Just great. Personal attack.  I didn't personally attack you, but you feel it okay to personally attack me.  Lovely.

I'm sorry.  I chose my words poorly.  What I meant to say was you definitively called the Bishop an idiot, then claimed you were speaking of his "idiotic message", then claimed to stand behind your statement.   You're flip-flopping between two stories.

See how that works?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Grunt

[mgridle]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I'm sorry.  I chose my words poorly.  What I meant to say was you definitively called the Bishop an idiot, then claimed you were speaking of his "idiotic message", then claimed to stand behind your statement.   You're flip-flopping between two stories.

See how that works?

I appreciate the apology.  Thank you, apology accepted.

No, I didn't flip flop. I'm afraid we are really getting wires crossed here.  I can explain more of what I meant, but I don't think it will do much good except more problems.  Can we just call it a day?

 

 

[Grunt]

Just now, mgridle said:

I appreciate the apology.  Thank you, apology accepted.

No, I didn't flip flop. I'm afraid we are really getting wires crossed here.  I can explain more of what I meant, but I don't think it will do much good except more problems.  Can we just call it a day?

 

 

Sure.

 

[zil]

11 minutes ago, mgridle said:

No zil, that is incorrect. I have commented on a grand total of 3 threads on this forum.  Maybe you should take a look in mirror.

In this post:

...you make accusations which you cannot possibly know the truth of (unless you'd like to now clarify that you actually know @darthzilla99 in person).  You go beyond just what can be reasonably concluded from his OP straight to extreme possibility as if the extreme possibility were known fact.  Rather than commenting on how one might perceive a person in the situation he describes, you jump straight to accusing him of being the worst of those things.

I suppose darthzilla99 might appreciate and benefit from your hyperbole, but it seems more likely that your advice would have been better served without the initial insults.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, mgridle said:

I really hate that in the modern Church, so and so was called as a Bishop, so they are perfect human beings who never make mistakes and therefore are always exempt from any third-party criticism

I have never heard any Latter-day Saint say or even suggest such a thing. I believe this is a strawman.

1 hour ago, mgridle said:

I'd suggest you not take sides and stay out of a two party conversation, if you want to have a respectable conversation.

Two-party conversations on MormonHub are carried on with private messaging. A forum message is always addressed to everyone who reads it. So no conversation here is only a two-party conversation.

1 hour ago, mgridle said:

I can have great respect for MY Bishop and still think he can do things wrong, not be correct, even be an idiot on certain issues-that's the price you pay for leadership-someone ain't gonna like your leadership. 

I have learned how to disagree with someone's decisions (even vehemently in life) yet still respect them.

I'll bet you five dollars that you would never say "You're an idiot" to the face of a bishop you respect. In almost any imaginable circumstance, calling a bishop or other Church leader "idiot" is a bad move.

I actually tend to agree with you, but I think you're missing the fact that American norms are not worldwide norms. A Filipino branch president might very well be led by the Spirit to tell his congregants not to worry about the children running around, and instead just to concentrate on the meeting at hand. Actions that would be shameful for American Saints (e.g. letting your children run screaming up and down the aisles) might not be so in other cultures.

[mgridle]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

In this post:

...you make accusations which you cannot possibly know the truth of (unless you'd like to now clarify that you actually know @darthzilla99 in person).  You go beyond just what can be reasonably concluded from his OP straight to extreme possibility as if the extreme possibility were known fact.  Rather than commenting on how one might perceive a person in the situation he describes, you jump straight to accusing him of being the worst of those things.

I suppose darthzilla99 might appreciate and benefit from your hyperbole, but it seems more likely that your advice would have been better served without the initial insults.

(I do have a suggestion, if you'd like to debate the merits of those comments, comment on that thread not try and cross-thread things).

?? Hyperbole.  Like what? 

The bit about Eagle Scout, RM.  Yeah actually those are things I know about; an individual who actually earned their Eagle Scout without mom and dad pushing them to earn it wouldn't be living at home after college. An RM who wasn't pushed to go on a mission won't be living at home after college. Parents who aren't enablers to their children, don't let their children live at home after they are in college.

"Perceive"  . . .what does perceive have to do with anything?

The facts (not perception) are a 31-year-old male who has a college degree and has the mental, emotional, spiritual capacity to be a fully functioning autonomous member of society. Yet he is not; he is living at home with his parents working part-time waiting for something to require him to move out of the house.

The facts are someone like that will never be able to attract a really good mate, period. That's not perception, it's reality.  If this individual does meet someone to marry, it's pretty easy to analyze based on what has been said the type of person they will currently marry. Someone who will control their life and tell them what to do with it. That's not an insult-that's just reality.

The guy already admits he knows what the problem is (he is immature and irresponsible). Immature and irresponsible adults want other people to control them or to enable them so they can continue being immature and irresponsible b/c being responsible can be really scary. The only way to stop that is to stop being immature and irresponsible and to take charge.

I did make an allowance for living at home if his parents were sick or for a noble cause.  I'd make an allowance if he had some intelligence problems (but probably doesn't b/c he did graduate from college).

I'm not insulting him, I'm telling him the facts.  It's his life-he can live it however he pleases.  I fail to understand where I was hyperbolic and insulting.

[mgridle]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have never heard any Latter-day Saint say or even suggest such a thing. I believe this is a strawman.

Granted I was being hyperbolic. But it is self-evident from this forum, Bishops and Stake Presidents are except from acting like or being idiots . . .clearly b/c we can't say it.

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'll bet you five dollars that you would never say "You're an idiot" to the face of a bishop you respect. In almost any imaginable circumstance, calling a bishop or other Church leader "idiot" is a bad move.

I actually tend to agree with you, but I think you're missing the fact that American norms are not worldwide norms. A Filipino branch president might very well be led by the Spirit to tell his congregants not to worry about the children running around, and instead just to concentrate on the meeting at hand. Actions that would be shameful for American Saints (e.g. letting your children run screaming up and down the aisles) might not be so in other cultures.

Well I wouldn't call most people an idiot to their face either; however, I have no problem when talking in a third-party context about so-and-so being an idiot.  That's fine if you'd like a less harsh word, "short-sighted", "slow", "not smart", maybe you'd like the term "fool" or "jerk" or "pinhead" ,etc.  Point being most of us refrain from using those types of words face-to-face but we will use them in a third-party context.

My main point, is I don't think the Bishop is exempt from being "short-sighted" if you please from time to time.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, mgridle said:

Point being most of us refrain from using those types of words face-to-face but we will use them in a third-party context.

Don't you think that's rather two-faced? I try not to talk about people in any way that I wouldn't talk to them face to face (public figures occasionally excepted). I don't always succeed, but usually I do. I thought, or rather hoped, that this was the LDS norm.

[anatess2]

33 minutes ago, mgridle said:

(I do have a suggestion, if you'd like to debate the merits of those comments, comment on that thread not try and cross-thread things).

?? Hyperbole.  Like what? 

The bit about Eagle Scout, RM.  Yeah actually those are things I know about; an individual who actually earned their Eagle Scout without mom and dad pushing them to earn it wouldn't be living at home after college. An RM who wasn't pushed to go on a mission won't be living at home after college. Parents who aren't enablers to their children, don't let their children live at home after they are in college.

My brother is a neurologist whose wife is a pediatrician.  They have 3 kids.  They lived with my parents until he turned 40 afterwhich he built a ginormous house and moved my parents there with him.  My other brother is an engineer and he had 1 kid before he moved out of my parents' house.  My sister is a nurse and she had 2 kids before she moved out of my parents' house.  Yes, my 2 brothers and my sister all had children living together with my parents in the same house we grew up in.  I moved out right after college because I did not want to follow house rules. 

My parents are not enablers.  My dad had lung cancer and all 4 of us paid for his medical treatment not covered by the insurance IN CASH.  We were putting out up to $2K/month, each of us, for over 3 years.  After my dad passed away, my sister and I go on periodic battles because she took my mom in and she gets upset if she goes to live in her siblings' houses.  My mom got upset that we kept on fighting so she said if we don't shut up she'll move to our old house and bar us from the gate.  So then she decided to live in my sister's house for 6 months, my brother's house for 4 months, and my other brother's house for 2 months over Christmas.  I didn't get to have a month because I have pet snakes.  So I get to live in 2 parts of the planet.  One part with the snakes, one part with my mother.

So yeah, I think it is stupid to kick your kid out of your house just because he's not a kid anymore.  You talked about getting free labor... then after you use them you lose them?  That's silly.  You keep them so that when you get too old they're going to be there to change your diapers!

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by anatess2

[mgridle]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Don't you think that's rather two-faced? I try not to talk about people in any way that I wouldn't talk to them face to face (public figures occasionally excepted). I don't always succeed, but usually I do. I thought, or rather hoped, that this was the LDS norm.

You bring up a good point, but I don't think what you claim is accurate or practiced, especially on a forum. For example, someone accused me of a forked tongue on this thread.  I highly doubt in actual face-to-face conversation that would ever have been said.  I'm fairly positive things you've said and others would never be said face-to-face probably quite frequently in the heat of battle so to speak on this forum.

I also don't agree that it is being two-faced as being two-faced is being insincere and deceitful.  What I wouldn't do is tell someone how wonderful they are to their face and then say they are horrible not to their face-that is certainly two-faced.

It's why generally I keep my opinions to myself, except for my wife and close, close friends (or anonymous message boards :-)!) I generally don't have a problem with say 95% of decisions leaders make, but they aren't immune or exempt from making stupid, boneheaded decisions.  

I have opinions that sometimes a leader does something stupid . . .so sue me.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, mgridle said:

You bring up a good point, but I don't think what you claim is accurate or practiced, especially on a forum. For example, someone accused me of a forked tongue on this thread.  I highly doubt in actual face-to-face conversation that would ever have been said. 

You don't know @Grunt.  He's military...

 

[mgridle]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My parents are not enablers. 

Okay fine. But again that's why America became the dominant massive world-power; it's why Philapinos never did.

Rugged individualism, that is what made this country great.  It's why no other country or people in the history of the world has done what the US did.  It truly was an exceptional nation.

[mgridle]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You don't know @Grunt.  He's military...

 

Hmm . . .good point. Maybe I'm military too :-)!

Edited May 2, 2018 by mgridle

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, mgridle said:

You bring up a good point, but I don't think what you claim is accurate or practiced, especially on a forum. For example, someone accused me of a forked tongue on this thread.

 

If the conversation happened in the same way it did in this thread?  Of course I would have.  Actually, things would likely have never gotten to that point because they would have gone horribly wrong as soon as you said "your Bishop is an idiot".  I'm usually extremely polite and respectful in person, but I don't handle insults well.  Like I said, I still have that new Mormon smell.  Haven't even taken the tags off yet.  I struggle to have the love and kindness of my brothers and sisters.  I hope to someday, though.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, mgridle said:

Hmm . . .good point. Maybe I'm military too :-)!

What branch?

[mgridle]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

What branch?

I was jesting; I've worked in military as a contractor most my life.

[mgridle]

dup

Edited May 2, 2018 by mgridle

[mgridle]

12 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If the conversation happened in the same way it did in this thread?  Of course I would have.  Actually, things would likely have never gotten to that point because they would have gone horribly wrong as soon as you said "your Bishop is an idiot".  I'm usually extremely polite and respectful in person, but I don't handle insults well.  Like I said, I still have that new Mormon smell.  Haven't even taken the tags off yet.  I struggle to have the love and kindness of my brothers and sisters.  I hope to someday, though.

But you and I both know that face-to-face conversation never proceed like conversations on forums do.  It is the nature of the medium; and you just have to accept that fact. For example, the first thing had anantess mentioned what she did would have been my screwed up face, 🤒 giving her the "what the heck???" look, where-in she would have immediately without me saying anything explained more. In fact, she would have explained in much more detail without any prompting anyways.

It is the nature of the medium . . .just accept it and move on.

12 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 Like I said, I still have that new Mormon smell.  Haven't even taken the tags off yet.  I struggle to have the love and kindness of my brothers and sisters.  I hope to someday, though.

Don't sell yourself short.  I bet you've got a lot more love and kindness than you think you have.

Edited May 2, 2018 by mgridle

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, mgridle said:

Okay fine. But again that's why America became the dominant massive world-power; it's why Philapinos never did.

Rugged individualism, that is what made this country great.  It's why no other country or people in the history of the world has done what the US did.  It truly was an exceptional nation.

Hah hah.  Filipinos are not a massive world power because we are a tiny archipelago who desires to be left well enough alone.   Lapu-lapu, a Filipino, killed Magellan to repel the Spanish colonials.  It wasn't until we became majority Catholic that we bowed to Spanish rule, thinking they were our religious leaders.  But we won a rebellion against the Spaniards and fought the Americans for our independence... and got it.  Look into your history.  We had 2 representatives in the US Senate in the middle of the Chinese Exclusion Act and while Blacks were still segregated from American society.  And yeah, we kicked the dictator Marcos out of power in a peaceful uprising without a single shot fired and without any help from anybody else.

Rugged individualism does not lead to your kids getting kicked out of your house.  Kicking your kids out of your house is what led to your broken families where a multi-millionaire hollywood celebrity goes on TV to say the welfare program is necessary because she has family who are on welfare and they really need it.  A multi-millionaire who can't even help her own family.  Lots of them in the US like that - they call themselves individualists.

Edited May 2, 2018 by anatess2

[mgridle]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Hah hah.  Filipinos are not a massive world power because we are a tiny archipelago who desires to be left well enough alone.   Lapu-lapu, a Filipino, killed Magellan to repel the Spanish colonials.  It wasn't until we became majority Catholic that we bowed to Spanish rule, thinking they were our religious leaders.  But we won a rebellion against the Spaniards and fought the Americans for our independence... and got it.  Look into your history.  We had 2 representatives in the US Senate in the middle of the Chinese Exclusion Act and while Blacks were still segregated from American society.  And yeah, we kicked the dictator Marcos out of power in a peaceful uprising without a single shot fired and without any help from anybody else.

Rugged individualism does not equate to kicking your kids out of your house.  Kicking your kids out of your house is what led to your broken families where a multi-millionaire hollywood celebrity goes on TV to say the welfare program is necessary because she has family who are on welfare and they really need it.  A multi-millionaire who can't even help her own family.  Lots of them in the US like that. 

That's fine you can have your opinion.  But you quite simply do not know what you are talking about and you are simply wrong.  You weren't born here, you aren't culturally American so I don't expect you to know or to even understand.  That's fine.  I'm out.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, mgridle said:

That's fine you can have your opinion.  But you quite simply do not know what you are talking about and you are simply wrong.  You weren't born here, you aren't culturally American so I don't expect you to know or to even understand.  That's fine.  I'm out.

Ohhh... this is what gets you in trouble.  Making judgments without knowing facts.  I am married to an American for 20 years now. Now tell me again how I don't know or even understand American culture.  I live in one!

But yeah, that... what, chip on your shoulder?  unmoving set narrative?...  is bogging you down.

Edited May 2, 2018 by anatess2

[mgridle]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Ohhh... this is what gets you in trouble.  Making judgments without knowing facts.  I am married to an American for 20 years now. Now tell me again how I don't know or even understand American culture.  I live in one!

But yeah, that... what, chip on your shoulder?  unmoving set narrative?...  is bogging you down.

You may think you do; but you don't.  So what that you are married to an American.  That is irrelevant.  You weren't raised American; you still have cultural heritage, ties, thoughts, ideas, etc. to the country you were born in. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with that.

Who is the one with a chip? Who is the one with the unmoving narrative? I have history, stories, ancestry that has been passed down from generations to me.  I have ancestors in my namesake that go to the Revolutionary War, ancestors that fought on both sides of the Civil War. I have journal records about what they did, the struggles they fought and how they made this place great.

And yet you, you who are an immigrant, who weren't even born in this country presume to know more about my heritage, my ancestry, what made my country great, than I do? 

So please tell me again who exactly is making judgment without facts?  This crap that is in the US for the last 20 years, isn't American heritage or culture, it's not what made this country great, no way, no how.  It may be current American culture-but it is just fumes.  It is just the fumes of the last remaining sparks that actually made America great; and when it finally burns up, America will fall and will be just like any other country in the world. The current American culture would never, could never have saved European bacon twice in the span of 30 years.

Alex de Tocqueville-America is great b/c America is good, if she ever ceases to be good she will cease to be great.

Like I said, you may think you know b/c you've lived here for 20 years, but you don't know and you can't know-it is impossible.  I don't begrudge you for not knowing.  But I do think it is a little egotistical smattered with some hubris to think you do know.

Edited May 3, 2018 by mgridle

[Guest]

For the record.... I had no idea this tangent would go so far.

[seashmore]

Quote

"Non-Church-related internet use in meetinghouses often creates difficulty for those who are trying to use it for Church purposes," it says in the release to Church leaders.

^^^This!

Also, am VERY glad that my YW can't lurk on IG or Pinterest before the lesson.  Surprised Snapchat wasn't listed.

Now, can we get rid of the automatic pop ups when you open the Gospel Library app that won't go away, even when you click "watch later?"  Frustrating switching between the GL app and a picture on my iPad for a lesson.