Does "Concern" Excuse Rudeness?

[Pa Pa]

In another thread a poster seemed to be (actually he was) excusing Preachers with bullhorns at Mormon events. His quote… "God bless them for caring enough about your soul."

When does "concern" excuse rudeness?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

In another thread a poster seemed to be (actually he was) excusing Preachers with bullhorns at Mormon events. His quote… "God bless them for caring enough about your soul."

When does "concern" excuse rudeness?

Was considered ruden in his time. What he could have done if he had a bullhorn in his day.

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Was considered ruden in his time. What he could have done if he had a bullhorn in his day.

So any behavior is acceptable as long as one cares?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

In another thread a poster seemed to be (actually he was) excusing Preachers with bullhorns at Mormon events. His quote… "God bless them for caring enough about your soul."

When does "concern" excuse rudeness?

I have a suspicious feeling that they wouldn't feel the same if LDS returned the favor is similar fashion.

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

I have a suspicious feeling that they wouldn't feel the same if LDS returned the favor is similar fashion.

They don't like us quietly knocking on does out of concern…bullhorns would be received very well don't you think? Not!

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

They don't like us quietly knocking on does out of concern…bullhorns would be received very well don't you think? Not!

That is exactly what I was thinking. Could you imagine the outpouring of hostility if even one set of missionaries were going around neighborhoods with bullhorns and yelling insulting things at Christian gatherings? Of course, it really would be out of love for those people.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

In another thread a poster seemed to be (actually he was) excusing Preachers with bullhorns at Mormon events. His quote… "God bless them for caring enough about your soul."

When does "concern" excuse rudeness?

Weinen, klagen, sorgen.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

In another thread a poster seemed to be (actually he was) excusing Preachers with bullhorns at Mormon events. His quote… "God bless them for caring enough about your soul."

When does "concern" excuse rudeness?

I would say almost never....but, I wouldn't say absolutely never.

The guys out there with the bullhorns...if they really are there just to disrupt, because they think all LDS are going to hell, I don't really see the point. If you think they're going to hell, just leave them in peace. Right?

We are commanded to share the gospel and I think anyone who isn't doing that, isn't doing what Christ asked.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Libby

I would say almost never....but, I wouldn't say absolutely never.

The guys out there with the bullhorns...if they really are there just to disrupt, because they thing all LDS are going to hell, I don't really see the point. If you think they're going to hell, just leave them in peace. Right?

We are commanded to share the gospel and I think anyone who isn't doing that, isn't doing what Christ asked.

I agree, do the Evangelicals have to share our Temple Ordinances, I find this more then rude, it's despicable. Mocking in some sense, not really educating people since we all know that not many lurkers or visitors frequent CARM or WM. So we really know why EV's do it.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Richard

I agree, do the Evangelicals have to share our Temple Ordinances, I find this more then rude, it's despicable. Mocking in some sense, not really educating people since we all know that not many lurkers or visitors frequent CARM or WM. So we really know why EV's do it.

If people are trying to reach Latter-day Saints (sincerely)...sharing Temple ordinances would probably be one of the worst ways to go about reaching them. In most cases it would be silly, anyway, if the person they're ministering to has already been through the temple.

But, teaching a cl*** on Mormonism to Christians? I could understand revealing the temple rituals, in that case. I think showing the garments is just wrong, though....mostly because it's underwear and private by virtue of what it is(regardless of the meaning). I would draw the line there. I know some here would probably disagree with me...

[teenapenny]

Originally Posted by Libby

If people are trying to reach Latter-day Saints (sincerely)...sharing Temple ordinances would probably be one of the worst ways to go about reaching them. In most cases it would be silly, anyway, if the person they're ministering to has already been through the temple.

But, teaching a cl*** on Mormonism to Christians? I could understand revealing the temple rituals, in that case. I think showing the garments is just wrong, though....mostly because it's underwear and private by virtue of what it is(regardless of the meaning). I would draw the line there. I know some here would probably disagree with me...

Growing up in the church, the Temple ordinances and garments were a great big secret, and many members only found about about them when they got to the temple. I know some members who wanted to walk out the minute it was revealed to them, but were too embarr***ed to do anything but continue on. That is why I feel a cl*** on Mormonism to Christians should include both temple rituals and garments, so that if any consider joining they know all there is to know.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Libby

If people are trying to reach Latter-day Saints (sincerely)...sharing Temple ordinances would probably be one of the worst ways to go about reaching them. In most cases it would be silly, anyway, if the person they're ministering to has already been through the temple.

But, teaching a cl*** on Mormonism to Christians? I could understand revealing the temple rituals, in that case. I think showing the garments is just wrong, though....mostly because it's underwear and private by virtue of what it is(regardless of the meaning). I would draw the line there. I know some here would probably disagree with me...

Yep, I have been mocked by a Pastor of another Church who waved them in my face and embarr***ed me in front of his own members, it was a set up and I fell for it by being invited by a neighbor friend trying to witness to me.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by teenapenny

Growing up in the church, the Temple ordinances and garments were a great big secret, and many members only found about about them when they got to the temple. I know some members who wanted to walk out the minute it was revealed to them, but were too embarr***ed to do anything but continue on. That is why I feel a cl*** on Mormonism to Christians should include both temple rituals and garments, so that if any consider joining they know all there is to know.

Hate to disagree with you, but they are not now a big secret, "Big Love" on television is very revealing.

Big Love is an American television drama on HBO about a fictional fundamentalist Mormon family in Utah who practice polygamy

RJ.

[Father_JD]

Ain't Bill Paxton grand?

[John T]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

In another thread a poster seemed to be (actually he was) excusing Preachers with bullhorns at Mormon events. His quote… "God bless them for caring enough about your soul." When does "concern" excuse rudeness?

You may be conflating several posters in that statement, and one of them is me, Marvin.

However, the use of bullhorns does not automatically create rudeness, and that is where you greatly err, and create a logical error.

While I do not agree with the use of bull horns as an effective tool of evangelism at the Pageant, it is NOT being rude to use them AFTER the pageant as people are crossing the street, going to the parking fields.

It would be indeed rude if the bull horns were used DURING the pageant in an effort to disrupt the staged production. In fact they could be cited for disturbing the peace if that were the case.

You may personally believe that it is rude to address a crowd with a bull horn, I do not. As long as the user does not accost or single out to shame a person in public, I believe that it is an acceptable, and protected exercise in free speech

[teenapenny]

Originally Posted by Richard

Hate to disagree with you, but they are not now a big secret, "Big Love" on television is very revealing.

Big Love is an American television drama on HBO about a fictional fundamentalist Mormon family in Utah who practice polygamy

RJ.

When I grew up in the Mormon church there was no television and it was all a big secret. Television has changed a lot of things.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by John T

You may be conflating several posters in that statement, and one of them is me, Marvin.

You got that wrong, John T. I am not Pa Pa. And Pa Pa is not me. I am Russianwolfe or Marvin but never anybody else. I do not have any other names nor do I sign on under any other names. Or maybe, since it is not clear, you are claiming to be me? Sad state of affairs when you claim to be me. It would not be your best choice.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by teenapenny

When I grew up in the Mormon church there was no television and it was all a big secret. Television has changed a lot of things.

Either you were of a fundamentalist sect or you are over 70 or 80 years old. And anybody who has read Mormonism: Myth or Reality will tell you, the garments were no secret as well as many other things.

Having joined the church more recently, I knew about the garments several years before I went to the temple. And my mother, who regretted her decision to allow me to join the church, was quick to point out anything that she thought would separate me from the church.

The only way these things were a secret was for decent people to ignore the yellow journalism that was quick to publish and broadcast anything they thought they could spin to their advantage.

Sorry, you didn't pay attention until you decided the church wasn't worth your time. Most member are too busy help others, doing their duty, and taking care of their families to bother with all the dissenting voices that clog the public media.

Marvin

[teenapenny]

[QUOTE=Russianwolfe;65738]Either you were of a fundamentalist sect or you are over 70 or 80 years old. And anybody who has read Mormonism: Myth or Reality will tell you, the garments were no secret as well as many other things.

Having joined the church more recently, I knew about the garments several years before I went to the temple. And my mother, who regretted her decision to allow me to join the church, was quick to point out anything that she thought would separate me from the church.

The only way these things were a secret was for decent people to ignore the yellow journalism that was quick to publish and broadcast anything they thought they could spin to their advantage.

Sorry, you didn't pay attention until you decided the church wasn't worth your time. Most member are too busy help others, doing their duty, and taking care of their families to bother with all the dissenting voices that clog the public media.

Marvin[/QUO
Yes, I am over 70. My father's family came across the plains with the second hand cart division to SLC and some settled in Salt Lake and others went up to Idaho. I have pictures of some of my family along with George Q Cannon in prison for polygamy. So you can see that I know what I am talking about. You are probably the most unkind person I have ever met, and
telling me that I did not pay attention until I decided the church wasn't worth my time was a very UnChristian thing to say. But people like you are part of the reason I left.

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by John T

You may be conflating several posters in that statement, and one of them is me, Marvin.

However, the use of bullhorns does not automatically create rudeness, and that is where you greatly err, and create a logical error.

While I do not agree with the use of bull horns as an effective tool of evangelism at the Pageant, it is NOT being rude to use them AFTER the pageant as people are crossing the street, going to the parking fields.

It would be indeed rude if the bull horns were used DURING the pageant in an effort to disrupt the staged production. In fact they could be cited for disturbing the peace if that were the case.

You may personally believe that it is rude to address a crowd with a bull horn, I do not. As long as the user does not accost or single out to shame a person in public, I believe that it is an acceptable, and protected exercise in free speech

I think it I despicable for anyone to bother anyone else who is at what they consider a religious gathering. Inexcusable…rude…uncouth…sad…should I go on?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by teenapenny

When I grew up in the Mormon church there was no television and it was all a big secret. Television has changed a lot of things.

I think if you go back through history and I believe it was the first anti-book ever written, Mormonism Unveiled, was published by Eber D. Howe in 1834.

Of fifty-six anti-Mormon novels published during the nineteenth century, four established a pattern for all of the others. The four were sensational, erotic novels focusing on the supposed plight of women in the Church. Alfreda Eva Bell's Boadicea, the Mormon Wife (1855) depicted Church members as "murderers, forgers, swindlers, gamblers, thieves, and adulterers!" Orvilla S. Belisle's Mormonism Unveiled (1855) had the heroine hopelessly trapped in a Mormon harem. Metta Victoria Fuller Victor's Mormon Wives (1856) characterized Mormons as a "horrid" and deluded people. Maria Ward (a pseudonym) depicted Mormon torture of women in Female Life Among the Mormons (1855). Authors wrote lurid p***ages designed to sell the publications. Excommunicated members tried to capitalize on their former membership in the Church to sell their stories. Fanny Stenhouse's Tell It All (1874) and Ann Eliza Young's Wife No. 19 (1876) sensationalized the polygamy theme. William Hickman sold his story to John H. Beadle, who exaggerated the danite myth in Brigham's Destroying Angel (1872) to caricature Mormons as a violent people. Anti-Mormon Publications

by William O. Nelson


Now comes another series of Big Love, and despite earlier ***urances from HBO it once again blurs the distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices. Such things say much more about the insensitivities of writers, producers and TV executives than they say about Latter-day Saints.

If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by Richard

I think if you go back through history and I believe it was the first anti-book ever written, Mormonism Unveiled, was published by Eber D. Howe in 1834.

Of fifty-six anti-Mormon novels published during the nineteenth century, four established a pattern for all of the others. The four were sensational, erotic novels focusing on the supposed plight of women in the Church. Alfreda Eva Bell's Boadicea, the Mormon Wife (1855) depicted Church members as "murderers, forgers, swindlers, gamblers, thieves, and adulterers!" Orvilla S. Belisle's Mormonism Unveiled (1855) had the heroine hopelessly trapped in a Mormon harem. Metta Victoria Fuller Victor's Mormon Wives (1856) characterized Mormons as a "horrid" and deluded people. Maria Ward (a pseudonym) depicted Mormon torture of women in Female Life Among the Mormons (1855). Authors wrote lurid p***ages designed to sell the publications. Excommunicated members tried to capitalize on their former membership in the Church to sell their stories. Fanny Stenhouse's Tell It All (1874) and Ann Eliza Young's Wife No. 19 (1876) sensationalized the polygamy theme. William Hickman sold his story to John H. Beadle, who exaggerated the danite myth in Brigham's Destroying Angel (1872) to caricature Mormons as a violent people. Anti-Mormon Publications

by William O. Nelson


Now comes another series of Big Love, and despite earlier ***urances from HBO it once again blurs the distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices. Such things say much more about the insensitivities of writers, producers and TV executives than they say about Latter-day Saints.

If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

I have to admit, it is hard to believe but you are good for something after all Richard......THANKS FOR THE LAUGH BUDDY Andy

[Richard]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

I have to admit, it is hard to believe but you are good for something after all Richard......THANKS FOR THE LAUGH BUDDY Andy

Hey good buddy, I love the way you shadow me around. Chuckle.

We Mormons are good at bringing laughter to others, Chuckle, chuckle. How's it going over at CARM, caught on to my new User Name yet?

Richard, your friend.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

I think it I despicable for anyone to bother anyone else who is at what they consider a religious gathering. inexcusable…rude…uncouth…sad…should I go on?

Spare us!

You are en***led to your opinion, no matter how much in error you are.

Since we both have been there, we both know that the protesters are separated on to the other side of a busy two lane road going on a curve and up a small knoll. Between the two is a phalanx of mounted police, police on bikes, ambulances, and an unknown numbers of under cover officers.

If this were on Temple grounds (one is nearby), or interrupting the drama on the stage, I would agree. In essence, and in fact, this is no different than having protesters outside on the other side of the street of an abortion clinic.

Your argument is akin to supporting the abortion providers (just an ****ogy, not an accusation) who do things in their clinic on the other side of the street who could make similar arguments as you do.

So rant and rage all you wish, you may NOT like it, but it is NOT illegal, and it does NOT interrupt the drama of the Pageant, and it is entirely (about 1/4 mile) away from the Pageant itself. Therefore, you make a mountain out of a molehill.

BTW I will wait for your rant on MADB about this. OOPS! I see that you already made a rant there.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by teenapenny

Yes, I am over 70. My father's family came across the plains with the second hand cart division to SLC and some settled in Salt Lake and others went up to Idaho. I have pictures of some of my family along with George Q Cannon in prison for polygamy. So you can see that I know what I am talking about.

---That doesn't prove that you always know what you are talking about.

You are probably the most unkind person I have ever met, and
telling me that I did not pay attention until I decided the church wasn't worth my time was a very UnChristian thing to say

----But he didn't even use a MEGAPHONE to say it to you, so how can it have been rude or mean? If your Westboro-esque pals can say MEANER things to US at our religious gatherings, and NOT be mean or rude, then how can what Marvin quietly typed on his keyboard be worse than that?

But people like you are part of the reason I left

---Since it is true that no given church is right for everyone, you probably did us and yourself a favor by quitting. So thanks for that.