Please stick to this one statement you just made:"I suppose, because you appear to have a negative attitude about this board and its posters. It makes me wonder often why you post here. I can only go by what you post and what you post is a lot of negativity about the body of posters here."

Where are you getting this from? Where is the LOT of negativity about the body of posters here? I use the word 'church-hopping' in one post to describe someone who I thought was going from church to church (and pre-apologized if I was wrong) and you conflate that into yet ANOTHER un-truth about my posts on this board. "It makes you wonder OFTEN?" What are you talking about? Please be SPECIFIC here..I made one SMALL post that was NOT negative..just stating a fact and you are maligning my character. As a matter of fact, my post had NOTHING to do with Mormonism and now you are asking what my status is in relation to it?

Stop generalizing about me and my posts please.

out

MY perception of your usage of that word is that you are using it in a derogatory manner. (Much like your interpretation of the word 'church-hopper', I suppose.) I'm not sure why you are applying that term to me and my beliefs but I don't see that it has any context in the current debate.

out

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2011 03:08PM by kolobian.

:)

Down boy!

I said: "I am convinced that fundamentalist ("Bible-believing") churchgoers can not hope to truly understand Mormonism the way ex-Mormons do. That is not a criticism, just an observation."

I equated the term fundamentalist to Bible-believing Christians. In what universe would I, a Christian, consider that an insult? Your perception is incorrect in this instance, definitely. I had no thought in my head when I wrote that sentence that it would be a good insult to throw at you, as I did not consider it insulting. It's a way to describe in a nutshell what a person's position is. And yes, it is relevant here where it's useful to know someone's background and/or beliefs in order to see where their point of view may be coming from. It's another aid to good communication, in my view.

Here are some definitions of 'fundamentalist' and 'fundamental' from various online dictionaries:

"Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines typically in reaction against the theology of Modernism. The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time."

"The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity (see Establishment), but has by and large retained religious connotations. Historically, for some constituencies fundamentalism connotes an attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs."


"A movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs"


"–adjective

1.
serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.

2.
of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.

3.
being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea."


"Fundamentalism arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians. The founders reacted against liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ."

All of those terms and definitions accurately describe the "fundamentalist" churches I have attended and the Christians I have known there. The basic "fundamentals" of their belief are inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth, atonement, bodily resurrecton and imminent return of Jesus.

I believe you share a belief in these Biblical "fundamentals"; hence can be described as a fundamentalist Christian.

You make it an issue yourself as you mention your position here and there in your posts and you comment on the beliefs of others. Here is just one example:

Posted by: outofutah
Date: March 30, 2011 03:07PM

"Actually I am sure you will have no problem finding a liberal-minded Pres church that doesn't really believe in any doctrine of God but only pretends to. These types of Presbyterian churches abound! Sorry; you seem to have found one that actually is one of the few left that believes in the Bible and it's God."

My label of you/your beliefs as "fundamentalist" is an accurate one for what you have said you believe and it is used by me as a legitimate term describing a certain set of beliefs. Your comments on this "liberal-minded" Presbyterian Church, that "doesn't believe in any doctrine of God but only pretends to" seems far more of a put-down than me categorizing you as fundamentalist, for the sake of clarity. On this board, yes, one's position and beliefs can matter when it comes to some of the discussions, especially those directly concerning religion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2011 09:17AM by Nightingale.

I'm not entirely on either poster's side, but I do think this has gone on long enough. I also wonder why what church Sandie belongs to is outofutah's concern and why Nightingale cares more about the perceived insult to Sandie than Sandie seems to?Just my take on it.

Just great! We will not hear the end of this now!

AIC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just great! We will not hear the end of this now!
Which grizzly are you referring to?

The word is "appear". In the context of the statement, it means she is talking about how your behavior ARREARS to her.

There is a difference in meaning between:

"You appear to have a negative attitude"

and

"You have a negative attitude"

To ponder the meaning a little deeper, you may want to consider the expression often used by Mormons regarding avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Now, "outofutah" are you also naive enough to want to get into a swearing contest with a Cabbie who would just love to shed some excess road rage? I promise you'll lose even if you do most of the swearing...

Nightingale has been an honored, gentle, and valued member of this community for as long as I have, and I consider her a close friend.

You, however, newgirl, are either a) a non-Mormon who is utterly ignorant of the dynamics of Mormonism but want to wear the mantle of expertise nevertheless, or b) a newly-out-of-the-church sort whose hostility might be understandable but is out of line nevertheless...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2011 01:49PM by Susan I/S.

I get what you are saying and I probably agree with how you are classifying the new poster, however I have to disagree with you when you appeal to length of time a poster has been on this board.

The idea that someone should be more reverenced or that they should be allowed a free pass to fight with someone just because they have been posting here for long is utter and complete bullshit. It is wrong, and I would have assumed it were below you.

That kind of hierarchical shit belongs in the Mormon church, not here.

Obviously I'm angry, this is offensive to me.

Edit: Oh, also, this drama is entertaining, if you ask me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2011 01:43PM by snb.

You seem to have that one confused with the hiearachy concept, and as a result you've fallen into the intellectual trap of using a strawman argument...

Nightingale has consistently demonstrated her insight, brilliance, and sensitivity here, and this whole attacking thread is way out of line.

On the perceptual elements of that issue, experience counts.

Thx Cabbie.

But.

I was thinking the same thing as snb!

Even though I've been here so long now that my backside has taken root in my chair, that alone gives me no special qualifications as the-one-who-is-always-right or the-one-who-can't-be-called-out.

All that matters in discussions and debates are the facts and not the personalities.

For the record, I wouldn't consider outofutah a new poster as she has been here at least for a year that I can tell (and recall her presence here for at least that long) and she herself has stated that she has been posting here for a long time. I have no reason to disbelieve her - or to call her a liar like she does me - over that point.

But having been here for quite a while, I can say that you are one of the least volatile contributors and you always think your posts out carefully. I'd say you cause less controversy than almost anyone--

So whether cabbie said it "correctly"--he very much has a point.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2011 12:55PM by Stunted.

I am at work but will get back to answer your questions when I can. I can address an aspect here and there (see above - I think I misplaced this reply) but want to think about a suitable response to your OP.

Again, I don't appreciate you calling me a liar and don't understand why after suitable discussion you persist and will not withdraw the charge. If you misunderstand a comment I make I don't consider you a liar. Why do you so quickly jump to the assumption that I'm lying.

The 'liar' epithet matters because:

1. It is not true, in this instance or any other.

2. It is a powerful threat that can destroy someone's credibility into the future.

3. As a Christian, you know how grave a 'sin' it is to lie and indeed, who the Father of the Lie is. How much would you like it if I called you a liar? Yet, you laugh about it. Nice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2011 02:39PM by Nightingale.

I know dat's right!

Timothy

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am at work but will get back to answer your
> questions when I can. I can address an aspect here
> and there (see above - I think I misplaced this
> reply) but want to think about a suitable response
> to your OP.
>
> Again, I don't appreciate you calling me a liar
> and don't understand why after suitable discussion
> you persist and will not withdraw the charge. If
> you misunderstand a comment I make I don't
> consider you a liar. Why do you so quickly jump to
> the assumption that I'm lying.
>
> The 'liar' epithet matters because:
>
> 1. It is not true, in this instance or any other.
>
> 2. It is a powerful threat that can destroy
> someone's credibility into the future.
>
> 3. As a Christian, you know how grave a 'sin' it
> is to lie and indeed, who the Father of the Lie
> is. How much would you like it if I called you a
> liar? Yet, you laugh about it. Nice.

I understand your frustration, but when a poster called me a liar, you suggested letting it go. Perhaps you should consider that.It doesn't seem like either of you are going to budge on this and you are now just repeating yourselves.This is the second t hread on the subject after all.

THE SECOND THREAD ON THE SAME TOPIC.

O.
M.
G.

[snark off]

We've had hundreds of threads on the same topics over the years and when people have something to discuss it can spill over into two, three, four threads.

Obviously there are still aspects of this for me to discuss with outofutah. I don't care if other people are bored, irritated, or disinterested. In that case, she and I can continue until we're done. And inevitably the thread will sink through lack of interest or being full up and timing out.

Nobody likes it when they are mischaracterized, such as her calling me a liar and giving zero proof and refusing to retract in spite of my responses and explanations.

I don't recall my advice to you bd about the incident you mention. I can't think of an instance where I would lightly and hurriedly say just let it go if someone used the L word against you.

Last summer a poster repeatedly called me a liar, again with zero proof and no truth to the claim, and that served as his response from then on, not needing to focus on any other point of discussion.

I find that if these types of incidents are ignored or left unchallenged they soon turn into urban myth around here. For a board full of people who want to know truth and value truth I find it strange that some think throwing around the word 'liar' is no big deal.

I know it's "just the Internet" and "only a message board" but still it's a community of people who "know" each of us, if only by our board names, and while I'm not reeling in devastation at outofutah's mischaracterization of me it is not something I would ignore. I have a right to defend and explain myself and I'm exercising that right.

I realize it's appropriate at some point to let it go, but not the day it occurs or even for several days after.

As for your comment above, bd, about me getting more upset by this than Sandie (or words to that effect) I did already acknowledge that by saying somewhere above that I wouldn't spend a lot of time on that aspect of it as Sandie didn't seem to take it too much to heart.

It's not just about Sandie though. There are other aspects of this that I've been wanting to discuss for a while.

The reason, as I believe I explained yesterday in one of these related posts, that I get irked at what I see as 'fundamentalism' is that to me it lacks compassion. Everything is so cut and dried, either/or, black and white, and I have suffered in my life from that type of attitude. So yes, it is a trigger for me when I see, hear or read it.

I do know it isn't up to me to defend another poster but I speak out when I see something I disagree with or something that brings to mind any topic or occurrence that relates to the wording in a post or what it causes me to think about that may or may not be directly related to comments in the post.

Often, to me, complete silence (i.e., no responses or nobody speaking out on behalf of another) can _feel_ like you're all alone and nobody cares about you or your situation or feelings or else, worse, everyone agrees with the one who is deriding you. So, sometimes I speak out, either to show support for another poster or to address an issue that is of interest or personal importance to me.

BD, you'd have to give me more info about the time I apparently said "let it go" re the lying thing. If I said that, maybe a lot of time had passed by, or everything had been said that could be and things weren't going to change or ???

I know I react strongly to being called that particular name (liar) but it's because truth is so meaningful to me. I can't stand liars and I am not a liar.