Well, I’ve found one other, that being Nametag. For all I know, I may have clarified sufficiently to meet his/her objections. But at least he isn’t here, playing a bunch of games, putting the burden on me to guess which remark of mine might’ve been the offending one, and deliberately misleading me to boot. (Although he didn’t say which remark of mine he thought was distinguishing between Mormons and Christians, now that I look back.)
But neither you nor he can expect me to provide an explanation unless the nature of your objection is clear and reasonably specific. Until then, if you don’t like what I say, it’s your problem and not mine. Mr. Gamesmaster.
Monty, you clearly had a problem with something I said. But you’ve led me through a guessing game about which comment of mine was the problem, complete with false trails. And you’ve in no way tried to explain how either possible offending remark said what you took it as saying. And you’ve sustained this game through an impreessive number of posts here.
And so far, the worst I’ve done is try to get you to make it clear what’s bothering you and how, and (lately) call you “Mr. Gamesmaster.” That ain’t too bad, really. Trust me, I’ve considered calling you much worse.
Monty, I’ve read over this entire thread, paying particular attention to the little subplot between you and RTFirefly. And my conclusion is that you are acting like a spaz. RTF is not at all in the wrong here. You have a giant chip on your shoulder in general, and are always ready to leap at the most innocent remark in which you perceive even the smallest hint of disagreement with your beliefs regarding your church. It appears to the casual reader that your apologetic philosophy reads something like “The best defense is a good offense.” This is just another case of your getting your panties in a twist over an innocent remark which nobody in their right mind would take offense at, except somebody itching for a fight and looking for a reason to be angry.
If you want to fight about whether mormons are Christians by the standard definition, start a thread in GD and I’ll be happy to join you there. Otherwise, quit flapping your mouth in a nonsense attack against a pretty easy-going and nonconfrontational individual?
You sure jabber a lot for a man who isn’t willing to step up and legitimately start the fight he’s so hot to argue tangentially in unrelated threads.
This doesn’t come right out and say it, but this is the post that I felt placed the words “Christian” and “Morman” in opposition, and I’m sure that it’s what Monty was responding to, also.
Just to try to get this thread back on track, I was once Best Man at a temple wedding of an LDS couple. The sealing was held at the Salt Lake City temple, which I could not attend as I am not LDS. A large reception was held afterward for all the guests.
When the ceremony was happening, the couple arranged for the non-LDS out of town guests to be taken on a tour of Temple Square by two of the missionaries there. They showed us books with pictures of Temple sealing rooms and generally described what was going on in the ceremony.
We were told that the sealing room only had space for about 30 people. Only the closest family members possessing Temple recommends attended the ceremony. The Maid of Honor and several of the bride and grooms siblings did not attend though they were all LDS because they had not yet gotten Temple recommends. Several current and former Bishops and Stake Presidents of the Church were invited to the reception, but not the sealing ceremony.
I was told that there was no role for attendants for the bride or groom at the ceremony itself. The people that were at the sealing told me that the bride and groom were very moved by the ceremony, and it was an important moment for them.
After the ceremony, we had pictures on the steps of the Temple. At the reception, I made a toast to the couple, as did the Maid of Honor, and each set of parents said a few words as well.
I always respected their right to have their wedding to be the way they wanted, and had no problem not being at the ceremony.
RT: This has come about because you made the comparison between “Christians” and “Mormon” without using the word “generally” after “Christians.” It appears that’s what you meant to say, given your last posting. Just like you, I’m not a mind reader either. {Insert appropriate smiley to show there’s really no hard feelings here.} I respect you very much for making that last posting. I really did believe that I was clear and that any attempt to make it more clear would’ve been just reposting what I’d already said. That would just be going around in circles, IMHO. I don’t like doing that.
Ah, now there’s the razor sharp wit I’ve come to expect from you, Monty. But my statement stands. You’re awfully quick on the draw to attack anybody who disagrees with your stance, yet consistently refuse to actually address the issue.
Monty, you really need to calm down and give people the benefit of the doubt. Seriously. For the record, my “doesn’t even pass a trivial sanity check” comment was about someone being excommunicated for something done by someone else. I don’t believe the story as told, but that doesn’t mean someone is lying–omission is often sufficient to fill an otherwise factually correct account with erroneous implications.
Re: “till death do you part”–I’ve often heard LDS belittle this, but I think it’s misguided. Yes, we believe that marriage is eternal, but we’re separated at death for a time just like everyone else. “Till death do you part” means let only death separate you. Unless genie and I get stepped on by an elephant at the same time, we’ll be separated at death too.
I really do think that the phrase “Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance” is one we could all try a lot harder to live by.
And believe me, I have found in my life that ignorance explains a lot!!.
Nametag, I presume I’ve adequately explained about the part before the snip. If not, let me know and I’ll see what I can add.
The part after - well, the Scriptures which were where the snip was are regarded as Scriptural by all concerned, so I was using the term ‘Christian’ in an umbrella fashion, covering all who accept the validity of that passage. Recognizing that Mormons had to draw different conclusions somehow, I asked Monty (or whoever I was responding to at the time) about the Mormon treatment of the passage.
Sorry if I was unclear - I thought I was choosing my words to stay away from exactly that question. Regardless of what conclusions I’ve come to, I had no interest in reopening the “are Mormons Christians?” can of worms in this thread, and was really trying to choose my words to avoid it. Not successfully enough, apparently. My apologies.
As I have now had the opportunity to explain, I was not making a comparison.
As is implicit in what Qadgop said, it never hurts to ask someone what they mean when mind-reading fails.
Thanks, I guess.
Except that I was inviting you to just plain repost your original posting, whichever one you meant. (In something of a hostile manner at the end, I’ll confess, but still.)
Joe_Cool, I don’t know if “easygoing and nonconfrontational” is an appropriate description of my debating style here (as my wife just said, “I think he’s got you confused with somebody else”); after all, we’ve banged heads more than a few times ourselves. But thanks for jumping in; I appreciate it.
Well, RTF, I hoped that the fact that I’ve had “bangings of heads” with both of you would tend support the fact that I’m not just harping on Monty because I argue with him often. As you said, we’ve had our moments too. I did, in fact, endeavor to give an objective reading to the whole thing, and IMO, your commentn was innocent and he overreacted.
BUT, maybe easygoing and nonconfrontational was a bit much.
