I don’t interact with Monty much, which is a good thing since he’s held a grudge against me for three years which I wish he would get over.
writing down: must buy tapioca for Monty’s next birthday…
Well, Kathy, as I mentioned, I was avoiding getting involved in the “constructive criticism” portion of the thread, as it seemed obviously well-meant, and I thought that it seemed like something that was “between you and Monty”, who I know from past experience is well able to speak up for himself in Pit threads.
Therefore I thought I would mention the “judging him by his numbers” issue, as this is a pet peeve of many people on these boards, myself included. We dislike hearing people slammed either for too few posts (“Newbie!”), or too many posts (“You must not have a life…”)
Glad to hear you weren’t “obsessing” over the numbers, but the fact that you thought it necessary to mention it, as Monty says, proves something, namely, that you are one of those people who judges posters by how much they post. Well, I guess everybody has to have a personal yardstick for judging other people–skin color, income, marital status. I suppose “post count” isn’t any worse.
And may I say that much of what I have learned about the LDS church on these boards during the last three years I have learned from Monty, his high posting numbers notwithstanding. I have yet to find that his “mouth runneth over”.
- Hands a big bowl of tapioca to Monty, before retiring again behind DDG’s Can O. Worms Splatter Shield. *
Bippy, also learning about LDS church
Looking at his numbers, I’ve noticed that over his career Monty does better against left-handed posters but a few more pit theads like this one will really ruin his lifetime ERA (Earned Rant Average).
Sorry, at present time, Monty is not “officeworthy”.
Saying that he’s posting more than the OP is meaningless. That somebody starts a thread does not necessarily mean that person is going to be a heavy responder to it. Maybe somebody had a question, and wanted to see other people debat it.
How much does he post compared to all other posters? Even that is questionable, as somebody who combines responses to several posts into one thread is going to have a comparatively low post count.
Mojo:
Earned Rant Average! I love it! I’m not exactly imaginative too often, so would you be so kind as to come up with some other good, shall we say, Pit Versions, of the rest of the baseball card stat abbreviations?
Bippy: Thanks for making sure the shield’s there. Being vegetarian, I only eat the vegetarian version of tapioca pudding (yeah, it’s loaded with soy). Still undecided as to if chowing on worms is veggie-compliant AND I’m not in a hurry to find out!
Do you really think posting “You are sorely mistaken” is “totally discounting that doper of having any intrinsic value to you as a human being any longer”? This requires a Pitting?
I have seen more comments that seem to imply “all those Mormons are weirdos anyway” than I have prickly responses from Monty.
For the record, I thought that mangeorge’s comment that he hoped Elizabeth Smart “had fun” being kidnapped and raped at knifepoint was one of the more distasteful comments I have ever come across on the SDMB.
But Monty is the one being Pitted. Go figure.
Regards,
Shodan
Where can I get me one o’ them, DDG? I don’t see it on her website. Or am I going to have to check the teeny-tiny classified ads at the back of MSL?
I actually enjoy a good debate. Monty is a worthy debater. I actually like what I see of him on the boards. But, as my wife has said, and several other posters here have said, he does have his points of contention, his “hot buttons.” When pushed, he seems to turn into a tiger shark with no regard of who he may have praised one day for agreeing with him or reviled previous days for bringing up points that disagree with his point of view.
I have had several interactions with Monty over the past year. While he is knowledgeable about the LDS church and it’s tenets, I have found that he can be very one sided, extremely dismissive of posters who do not agree with his POV, and very demanding that any cites you bring to the table come from his “approved” sources.
The numbers of posts are irrelevant. Monty posts, he posts often, and he tends to overwhelm at times with the sheer number of posts. He can be kind, he can compliment you on your knowledge, or he can dismiss you with a wave of his mouse if you are either ill-informed or your sources are not to his liking.
Personally, I have been left with a sour taste in my hard drive sometimes while reading his defense of a church that has such a hold over it’s members that it holds a living man in higher regard than it’s own scriptures, including the Bible.
This can be very dangerous, as it was in the past, to give one man this kind of power, to rewrite scripture, if they so wish. But they have left themselves an easy out, as it were, by proclaiming:
In other words, if something you don’t like has happened in the past, simply have the current prophet retract the statement or make a new proclamation about it. And it’s magically gone!
And then there are the three conflicting statements that somehow resolve themselves in an LDS mindset:
and
Question: How can we tell?
Of course, since the four quotes above are by dead prophets, they apparently can be retracted as doctrine or changed at any time.
A good example of the misuse of this power is in the LDS scripture Doctrine and Covenants. Section 132. This is purportedly a revelation from God to Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS religion. This revelation was “given” to Smith after his wife, Emma, found out he had been practicing polygamy without her knowledge and she told him to cut it out or she would leave him. Smith “received” the following from God:
The section goes on to describe the “new and everlasting covenant” of plural marriage.
In other words, God is commanding Mrs. Smith, in Mr. Smith’s voice, to let him have other women! Hey, cadolphin!!! I just received a revelation from God that you are to allow me to have other women! And you’ll like it or God will destroy you! So forgive your husband, and God will forgive you! Oh sure, that will work. Kathy will believe me and let me do it, just because I said it in God’s voice.
It has been presented that “the only thing official about the Mormon Church is that nothing is official.” It seems that most of the doctrine of the LDS religion is oral and unofficial, coming down in Sunday school lessons, seminary and institute (high school and college religion) classes, BYU devotional meetings, weekly ward meetings, and books by Church officials and others who ultimately speak only for themselves. It seems that a good majority of the doctrine exists only in the minds of the members, and that this absence of formal doctrine means that each generation must restate the religion to their own interpretation.
Think about it. No, I mean really think about it. Yes, Mormons are, on the whole, a very good people. Does this make their religion the only true religion? Not at all. Yes, they have been persecuted for their beliefs. Does this make them the only true religion? Of course not. Other religions have been harassed and threatened, not only the LDS.
It would be much more palatable to many people if the LDS would drop the ridiculous claim of being the “only true religion.” I covered this in a previous post. It is Church Doctrine that “all other religions are false.”
Read that above scripture and keep in mind that it is the accepted doctrine of the church. All other churches are “wrong”, all other “creeds are an abomination”, that “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Yes, I am a former Mormon. It was only after hours of study and seeking that I realized the error of my ways. I cannot, in good conscience, belong to an organization that tells other organizations that do not subscribe to the same beliefs that they are an abomination in God’s sight and deny God’s power. Or have the current LDS authorities rescinded that revelation yet?
I have been brought to task by Monty on occasion for using quotations and scriptural references out of context. He’s right. I have been guilty of that in the past. In that regard, I guess I could say I’m a better poster because of Monty. Thank you for that, and thank you for insisting on accuracy.
As far as my wife, Kathy is not “judgmental.” She is simply seeking answers, like all of us are. Some find it in religion. Some find it in nature. Some find it in the awareness of being. I found her OP to be spot on in most of her points. If the numbers disturb you, mentally remove them.
Everyone, including myself, needs an occasional reminder that we are not the be-all, do-all. Kathy reminds me of it constantly. And I believe I can sum up her OP in one sentence: Monty, lighten up! You’re not going to convert anyone here. Oh, ok, two sentences: Monty, lighten up! You’re not going to convert anyone here. But then again, neither am I. Ok, three sentences…let’s come in and do this again….
[quotes]
Still undecided as to if chowing on worms is veggie-compliant AND I’m not in a hurry to find out
[/quote]
Worms are vegetables??
And liking tapioca!!! <shudder>
Well, as far as pit stats go, your slugging percentage is nowhere as high as Lieu’s.
:d&r
Looks like you yourself have something to get over. Care to offer some support to your so-far unsubstantiated claim?
cadolphin, what then was the point of your “Monty posts more than the OPs in threads do”? That he posts a lot? I guess you better throw me, Polycarp, Guin, Lib and Coldfire in jail with him … although that would make for some interesting discourse:D
In this thread Monty accused me of being somehow bigoted against Elizabeth Smart and her family because they are Mormons. When I told him I had no idea they were Mormons he called me a liar. His false witness against me, for which he has yet to repent, was based on a thread I started three years ago and had completely forgotten about until he dredged it up to use as fuel for his false witness.
So yeah, I think “grudge” is fair. Do I need to “get over” anything related to Monty? I don’t think so considering the thread that triggered his grudge is one that I’d completely forgotten, but I’m sure the fact that I even bothered to add my two cents to this thread will be taken by some as evidence that I’m not “over” whatever it is I’m supposedly not “over.” So be it; can’t say as it concerns me much either way if someone thinks I am or am not “over” something and my feeling is Monty feels pretty much the same way. I’d appreciate an apology for his bearing false witness against me but seeing as how that’s not going to be forthcoming I’m not exactly staying up nights.
Eh, I’m going to go with the OP on this one.
I’m Catholic, hell I even go to Catholic U, but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize the Catholic church. You don’t see me jump on people who say bad things about the Catholic church. Jezus, I even have said bad things about the Catholic church.
But, oh Lordisa, bring up the Mormon church and whoooo weeeeeeee is Monty there to defend every little tiny deal about the Mormon church.
I think blind faith is a scary scary scary scary SCARY thing. God (or whatever diety you choose) gave us free will and a mind to question the ways of the world.
And I have joked about the Mormon Church and continue to enjoy a good joke even though I’m a life-long member.
Part of a healthy relationship with your beliefs is being able to see the humor in it.
Blind faith IS a SCARY thing!
Kathy
Kathy
Kathy
I find myself curious about the pitting of fellow dopers: reading these threads gives me insight into the character of the pittee and pitter which supplements any direct posting contact I may have with either, neither or both. I filter the mental image of frequent posters based on such extraneous conversations, by which I mean to clarify my purpose in responding here. I have had little in the way of direct post conversation with Monty, but I suspect that is due more to our individual posting times, styles and interests. I arrive here, so to speak, relatively neutral.
bolding mine
Twice, you make denigrating comments indicating your equation of Monty’s posting quality with immaturity. Not cool, my friend. Secondly, per my bolding above, you take pains to first, question his experience and membership time in the Church, and second, take even greater pains to deny doing so. Again, not cool. These two things stuck out when I read your OP. The third is the intentional listing of Monty’s response/OP ratio, as has been clearly addressed by others. Third time, not cool.
I am left with two conclusions; Monty is undeserving of this Pitting. This OP needs to better evaluate the issues and bring this back with a clearer statement of purpose.