M. Russell Ballard on the Sabbath

[Tex]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I think I should have been more detailed when I wrote before. The discussion might not have become so derailed. Cathy Stokes lived in Chicago as recently as 2 years ago. Does she live in Chicago now? I don't know. Also, she has been involved with projects originating in Salt Lake for quite a while now. She is involved with the Genesis Group and was involved with the Freedman's Bank Records genealogy project. Thus, she it was not unusual for her to be in Salt Lake as part of these projects. There is a good chance that she happened to be in Salt Lake and not flown in specifically for the project (assuming she still lives in Chicago). Also, she has a certainly prominence as a member. For example, she is mentioned in the following Church news article:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/ind...004e94610aRCRD

She also is featured (along with many others) in the book or pamphlet called Why I Believe (http://deseretbook.com/store/product..._id=100035353). Thus she does have some prominence in the church and make sense that she was involved with the Sharpton visit.

The hijacking is my fault ... I suppose I should've made the Lee/Genesis comment in a new thread. Sorry about that.

It's nice to hear black members of the church representing it so well to others. I once heard a black woman member of the church speak very eloquently on the topic at Ricks College way back in the day, and I wonder if it was her. She was very persuasive and it was a fascinating speech.

I've never heard of the Genesis Group before and I'd like to learn more about it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

"Almost everyone"? I didn't keep a poll, but there was more than a few posters hypothesizing about Lee's racism based on the reported "not while I'm prophet" statement. A few even suggested the shortness of his tenure was a result of this stance.

So don't pretend the statement doesn't reflect a fair amount of sentiment.



True, I could've left out the word "pig" and avoided some of this hyperventilation. It is also true, however, that no matter how rationally and attack-free I make my points, it's met with consistent ridicule (see my sig for just a few mild examples). And the moment I make a small personal retort in return, the thread explodes.

Until I see some similar rhetorical anger directed at your fellow posters, I'll thank you to end the lecture on what a civil place Cougarguard is, sans my comments.

Go back and read my post again. Where did I say it was a civil place? Can you find it? You have no idea what I think about these issues. In fact, I have been very disappointed in the way several persons have dealt with you and others on this site and I have told them so. At the same time, it is hard to urge others to behave more civilly if the target of their ire acts in the way they claim.

Moreover, you avoided the primary point I was trying to make: Why do you approach it this way? To what end? If you just want to stir it up, get a rise out of people, then I suppose you are succeeding. If you want to persuade or convince you are failing spectacularly. This is especially true when you accuse me of these things, as I have never taken the positions you assume. You can be as civil or uncivil as you will, but if you want me or others to take you seriously (and this is equally true of several of your more vocal foils) then you need to approach it as something other than a game or an opportunity to display your high school debate techniques.

Btw, are you making an offer that if I lecture my "fellow posters" (and here I thought that is what you are) you will behave more civilly in the future? If so, I accept.

I iwll also accept responsibility for the hijack. Sorry about that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Go back and read my post again. Where did I say it was a civil place? Can you find it? You have no idea what I think about these issues. In fact, I have been very disappointed in the way several persons have dealt with you and others on this site and I have told them so. At the same time, it is hard to urge others to behave more civilly if the target of their ire acts in the way they claim.

Moreover, you avoided the primary point I was trying to make: Why do you approach it this way? To what end? If you just want to stir it up, get a rise out of people, then I suppose you are succeeding. If you want to persuade or convince you are failing spectacularly. This is especially true when you accuse me of these things, as I have never taken the positions you assume. You can be as civil or uncivil as you will, but if you want me or others to take you seriously (and this is equally true of several of your more vocal foils) then you need to approach it as something other than a game or an opportunity to display your high school debate techniques.

I make no apology for my occasional sarcasm although I do try and stem my forked tongue most of the time. I guess it's because I expect so little from the responses. If you think decorating my presentation with flowers and chocolates would've elicited any different response from such posters as Lebowski, Cali, and Arch, you are sadly mistaken. All the same, I will agree I ought to "rise above."

Originally Posted by creekster

Btw, are you making an offer that if I lecture my "fellow posters" (and here I thought that is what you are) you will behave more civilly in the future? If so, I accept.

I iwll also accept responsibility for the hijack. Sorry about that.

It was more of a rhetorical statement, given that compared to the statements in my sig, any of my sarcasm is milquetoast. But I do prefer intelligent conversation to flame wars, and am happy to oblige.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

I make no apology for my occasional sarcasm although I do try and stem my forked tongue most of the time. I guess it's because I expect so little from the responses. If you think decorating my presentation with flowers and chocolates would've elicited any different response from such posters as Lebowski, Cali, and Arch, you are sadly mistaken. All the same, I will agree I ought to "rise above."



It was more of a rhetorical statement, given that compared to the statements in my sig, any of my sarcasm is milquetoast. But I do prefer intelligent conversation to flame wars, and am happy to oblige.

Forget chocolate and flowers, look at this very example: Is it more persuasive to point out affirmatively that HBLee's involvement, along with BKPacker, in founding the Genesis group belies the claim that he is racist or is it better to engage in sarcasm that calls him a racist pig? Which is more likely to elicit the type of response you purport to dislike? How do they disagree with the affirmative statement, as long as you don't over claim it? You know this, but you are refusing to fully concede it. In any event, less unpleasant sarcasm from everyone would be better, IMO.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I think I should have been more detailed when I wrote before. The discussion might not have become so derailed. Cathy Stokes lived in Chicago as recently as 2 years ago. Does she live in Chicago now? I don't know. Also, she has been involved with projects originating in Salt Lake for quite a while now. She is involved with the Genesis Group and was involved with the Freedman's Bank Records genealogy project. Thus, it was not unusual for her to be in Salt Lake as part of these projects. There is a good chance that she happened to be in Salt Lake and not flown in specifically for the project (assuming she still lives in Chicago). Also, she has a certainly prominence as a member. For example, she is mentioned in the following Church news article:

Guys, also let me add a nice story about her as recounted in Eugene England's Dialogues with Myself:

Let me add to that a confirming modern testimony from a woman, Lavina Fielding Anderson in that Presidential Address quoted earlier:

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Guys, also let me add a nice story about her as recounted in Eugene England's Dialogues with Myself:

Excellent story.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Forget chocolate and flowers, look at this very example: Is it more persuasive to point out affirmatively that HBLee's involvement, along with BKPacker, in founding the Genesis group belies the claim that he is racist or is it better to engage in sarcasm that calls him a racist pig? Which is more likely to elicit the type of response you purport to dislike? How do they disagree with the affirmative statement, as long as you don't over claim it? You know this, but you are refusing to fully concede it. In any event, less unpleasant sarcasm from everyone would be better, IMO.

I'm not refusing to concede it, I'm indicating it makes little difference. But all the same, I agree with you: less unpleasant sarcasm from everyone (including myself) would be better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

If you think decorating my presentation with flowers and chocolates would've elicited any different response from such posters as Lebowski, Cali, and Arch, you are sadly mistaken.

Come on, Tex. That sounds awfully paranoid.

[Archaea]

It is mostly about style, and a little about content.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is mostly about style, and a little about content.

But as you know, style can dramatically affect the effectivenenss of content. (which is why, with all my typos no one takes me seriously)