Brings up the comment by Nelson that God is offended by the use of Mormon.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearofpolygamy/2018/10/choose-not-to-nickname/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mormon&utm_content=48

Why would a supposed all-powerful, all-knowing being ever be "offended" by anything?
Isn't that a rather petty human emotion?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would a supposed all-powerful, all-knowing
> being ever be "offended" by anything?
> Isn't that a rather petty human emotion?


Exactly her point. She even points to talks by GA's on how one is spiritually immature if one is offended. It lists 5 suggestions about being "offended"

Oh no what a terrible tragedy. If someone calls the people in the [long phrase] as "Mormon" then Heavenly Father might go "less active" because he'll be offended. Oh how I have been taught that everyone who goes "less active" does so because they were offended. If Heavenly Father goes "less active" then who is going to help us find our car keys? We'll have to do it all by ourselves.

Ironic that their god is ..."offended" by everything but basically dismiss those (ex/nonmormons) who are offended by theirs and their churches behavior..

The whole name change thing is one of the most ridiculous policy changes I have ever seen. Ill-considered. Petty. Laughable. Unworkable.

And because the Mormon prophets pretend they meet the Saviour in the Mormon temple then at least some of their people will actually believe that Nelson got it from the horse's mouth (sorry Jesus) that great offence has been caused all these decades by former Mormon prophets not knowing they shouldn't be calling themselves Mormons?

You could laugh. But it's just so pitiful.

Poor Mormons. I mean, poor former Mormons. Wait - that's us. So what are we supposed to be called now? And how to differentiate between current Mormons who are former Mormons and former Mormons who are not [new name]. Could we just boil it down for convenience sake and call them Saints? Other than perhaps getting mixed up with a basketball team here or there that works. And we would be not-Saints. We can't complain about any negative connotation there as we already acknowledge hey, we're not saints. Who is? Well, just those folks who used to be Mormons.

The head spins. The brain explodes.

If there is a god, it would be pathetic that he would be "thin skinned". And if he were, I couldn't worship a thin skinned god.

Walking on eggshells for an all powerful god? Really?????

and everything in it, with perfect knowledge, and now HE is offended?

It's like making a sandwich and then being offended by the sandwich that you made. "How dare you be a tuna-salad sandwich instead of an egg-salad sandwich!! I, the lord, your god and creator, am offended!"

Sheesh, Mr. God! If you wanted an egg-salad sandwhich all you had to do was make an egg-salad sandwich. Are you off your meds again?

Around the Mormon god you have to:
Pray a certain way, so god can truly "hear" your prayers.
Women have to dress and act a certain way.
Sunday uniforms a must for god to truly appreciate you.
Not drink coffee or tea.
Not...call your church, what it has been called since the beginning because..n.o.w..God is offended by the name...of his own church and followers.

Why couldn't God just stick with commenting on the righteousness of women's self accentuations?

"Dear Jesus,

"I want to do the right thing here. I'm a mere mortal, so I'll never be perfect. Please guide me: should I stop masturbating or should I stop using the word mormon? Please let me know which one offends you most.

"Also, which is worse: getting mad and saying 'Jesus Christ!" or getting mad and saying 'M-----F-----!"

"Thanking you in advance, I remain your humble servant,

"BYUBoner"

Nelson makes Jesus seem like a cranky toddler who thinks he isnt getting enough attention.

I think the 'professionals' term that projection. :)

lol

I was going to quote something from my old Jesuit-educated "sponsor" about how he didn't think anything we could do would "truly offend God," but I see pretty much everyone here is on the same page.

Cabdriver Confession: "When I saw this, I got all hot-and-bothered thinking we might see another "Denial C. Peterson" meltdown. Nope, this one is somebody else."

But a Cabbie note to DCP (whom I'm sure will read this): We may yell and argue and squabble among ourselves, but we're all in general agreement you're the consummate horse's hind end...

But keep telling us how you "glory in the uniqueness of 19th Century Mormonism." We love it when you discuss it, but we can't tell whether your favorite is the age of 19th Century LDS "brides," the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Brigham Young's clearly treasonous activities during the "Utah War," or...

Personally, one of my favorites is how Col. Edward Steptoe--the President's original choice to replace BY as territorial governor--visited Great Salt Lake City. When his men left for California, they were accompanied by scores of LDS women fleeing polygamy...

Edited to correct "delight" to glory. Honest "senior moment," seriously.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2018 01:21PM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But a Cabbie note to DCP (whom I'm sure will read
> this): We may yell and argue and squabble among
> ourselves, but we're all in general agreement
> you're the consummate horse's hind end...

Quite a few around these parts don't relish the general "we". We "glory" in having left that behind. "We" don't all agree 100% (the understatement of RfM's multi-decades history).

If I don't know someone personally or haven't had any kind of interaction with them I usually reserve judgement about them (public figures aside, about whom there are often abundant reasons to form firm judgements). As a short termer in (not-)Mormonism, rather than being BIC, I have less to dislike or at least fewer years and limited influence to colour my opinion about it, true enough.

If not for this board I wouldn't know about DCP. I did purchase some FARMS material in an attempt to find out more info (pre-Net). I couldn't understand it - thought I must be clueless in the extreme.

I have never been a fan of being included in generalizations. It's a learning curve though, I realize, even for me, as it's easy to try and speak for a group and it kind of just comes out naturally. Bound to be inaccurate though. What seems obvious to us isn't necessarily the way we think it is or the way that others see the exact same thing, shockingly at times.

Despite knowing that true enough many folks here (likely not 100% as "we" would indicate) don't care for DCP as he represents a lot of what they dislike about (not)Mormonism, among other reasons, my take is that he might not be rotten to the core. Long ago and far away I exchanged messages with him. He did me a solid, to the potential benefit of another RfM poster (who was not his greatest fan), something that would have been of enormous help in a dicey IRL situation. I didn't say anything at the time, primarily to preserve people's privacy, partly due to the extreme animosity here at the time against him - I didn't want to wade into that. Also, I didn't want to appear to be a DCP apologist (same applies now). I'm not making any comment about the way he does his (not)Mormonism. Just saying that people can surprise us, generalizations can be incorrect, most folks are multi-layered and I once saw a most human side of a prominent (not)Mormon that many love to hate.

So. That tends to colour one's perception of a person.

It doesn't say anything to me about (not)Mormonism or about DCP's work or goals or life or anything else about him. Except that once he came instantly to my aid when I asked, in an area where he had access when many do not. Turned out the people involved didn't need the outside assistance but it was there, offered freely, to exmos.

Surprising, eh? Even (some) apologists can be ever so slightly human.

Remembering that most people and circumstances are nuanced and primarily that I don't know everything (although I forget that part sometimes) is a good way for me, I have found, not to sit too comfortably in my own little ivory tower. I can be wrong. Once every blue moon or two.

This I know, most folks are complex. Some are all bad, 'tis true, but many more have at least a few good seeds. Fortunate indeed we are if we spy them. Life would be dark for me if not.

Here's my "metaphorical take": You were standing on the curb on a very busy street, perhaps carrying some packages, and you started to step off, and an individual--rightfully--gave you a warning for which you were extremely grateful to be able to avoid a speeding car. In the confusion, you dropped something, and asked him for some help picking it up...

He complied, and now you feel a strong need to defend him, even though you've read a number of "media accounts" that show him in an unpleasant light. Perhaps he was a shoplifter, perhaps he's up on domestic violence charges; pick something...

I have no doubt there are some "gender issues" here, but I'm going to borrow a "process comment" from an old PhD mentor of mine (still a very believing Mormon I care very deeply for): "You keep trying to 'one-up' me."

Now, I'm not going to tell you to lay off (I know better). I am going to ask/invite you to look at the issue more deeply, that's all. My old mentor simply looked at me and said, "Pay attention to what I'm saying!" It took me about eight months to understand why he said that--this was about 20 years ago--and in order to work through my own biases and perceptual blockades, I had to cross-examine myself ruthlessly. Your mileage may vary, but really this is just a request for an "open mind."

Cabdriver Confession: I actually trolled DCP's blogsite one time, and imperfect human being that I am, I enjoyed tweaking his mustache... He recognized my moniker, of course... I don't recall what he said about this site (pretty much the only one I visit under this moniker, honest), but it was really nasty.

I also caught hell from an old friend for bringing his name up here, so I'll just tell another story about the time he engaged DCP on another site, and I caught wind of it. My friend called him "Denial C. Peterson," and Danny Boy (please call him that; I know he does hate that one) "gave me credit" by hollering that my friend wasn't being original. I popped in and said I'd given him "a franchise." DCP went away immediately.

Other than that one time, I've never "trolled DCP" although I did give my friend Cricket permission to "lift this one from RFM." Will Bagley loved it incidentally. I'm human enough to want to share it with certain folks, particularly since Peterson called Will a "lying, venomous gasbag." Will loved this piece...

http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/danielcpeterson/

I also looked at some of the apologists' sites he frequented, occasionally "mining them for material" (with ADMIN's permission; I was told he was "fair game"). It wasn't pretty, honest. Now I "purposely chose my cabbie identity" here because of the "opportunity" it offered (since my profession isn't noted for following Miss Manner's Bible). From my treatment background, I knew there were times I would need to be nasty in order to communicate effectively.

Terribly un-Christian of me, but see, there was this Egyptology class I once took, and Christianity no longer "worked for me." And it had nothing to do with Christian ideals (which, I think you'll admit, sometimes "give rise to martyrdom"); it had to do with the actual historical origins of the faith.

Nobody on this site, myself included, is going to argue that you're not a really nice person. What I'm saying is there are people I won't be "nice" to, at least here. Peterson is one (which is why he's not permitted here even though he wanted to participate for awhile, and I think that actually happened).

It's not about me being a jerk; it's about my "taking care of myself," and I thus reserve this luxury for myself. There are always those out there who would "make me there victim."* They might well succeed, even, but I've found it a lot less onerous, at times, to make sure the price they have to pay is really high. Word gets around...

You're welcome to believe what you want about DCP; I don't share those beliefs, however.
____________
*From my student teaching days: One of my leaders/supervisors in my "cohort" identified this management device: "Get mad! Go ahead and get mad, and let them realize you're angry." That's not a license to "abuse" students, but it is a device for creating an environment where you can teach them something.

When Mr Bigglesworth gets upset, people die!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iD-j4eIjQ5c

That silly Mormon god is just choosing to be offended and is probably on his way to apostasy.

"choosing to be offended is a symptom of a much deeper and more serious spiritual malady."
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/and-nothing-shall-offend-them?lang=eng

was offended. But that was just the beginning. Turns out he's also totally inactive now. Won't even take visits from his home teacher (who happens to be Nelson). Now you know why Nelson has his panties in a bunch about this whole thing.

If Lester Funbucket down the street goes inactive, it's sad and a ward project. But if Mormon God goes inactive, it's a crisis. And he has a lot of influence on Ho-Lee Gost, the guy who gives everyone their special feels in the temple. If he goes inactive too it could be the end for everyone.

Maybe the god of Mormonism just wants to sin.

LUV, LUV, LUV it!!!!


Like lets get on with the REAL problems PLEASE!!!!

Well, he sure wasn't offended when we were all taught to say that we were not Christian, we were MORMON. He wasn't offended when we were all forced to read The Book of MORMON. He wasn't offended when they ran all the Youtube crap about being MORMON.

It is nothing but a CORPORATE attempt to rebrand a bad product. No matter the label, there is still the same old overpriced crap in the can. Too many people know that so they are attempting to change the name but it is not going to work in the real world. People are still going to call it mormon so they are just going to have to suck it up. Hell, chances are good they will change it again soon.

And once again, the mormon god is petty. You really think he has nothing else to think about? Same for garments. Even as a kid I thought it was just stupid to think that god gave a crap about what kind of underwear you have on. Same for the temple crap. Stupid and petty. And stupid.

I betcha they would have no problem taking a cheque made out to the mormon church. They would cash that zippyskippy.

I will continue to call it mormon because that is what it is. If that is rude or offensive oh wells. I find it rude and offensive. OK, except when I call it LDSInc. :)