Reasons you left the LDS church.

[Archie Moses]

Perhaps it's not how others are reading your posts but rather how you are writing them? You do come across as quite angry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtzIWPeun7c

This is what I was thinking.

 

[Archie Moses]

Some of it is directed at people who make ignorant statements that seem to imply that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is a hopeless hedonistic *** hole.

Maybe they don't make statements that you're an *** hole because you don't believe in Jesus, maybe they make them because of how you respond. Just food for thought.

 

[LogGrad98]

What cracks me up is those that join a religion and then complain about certain aspects and try to change the religion.

This always cracked me up to, which is why I never understood Sunstone. That is kind of like joining a basketball league and complaining that they don't allow traveling, or double-dribble. Then petitioning and getting people up in arms that they won't change the rules for you.

 

[GVC]

Maybe they don't make statements that you're an *** hole because you don't believe in Jesus, maybe they make them because of how you respond. Just food for thought.

I was talking about the possible implication of a statement he made that wasn't directed at me. Keep up.

 

[Agoxlea]

This is true. A lot of junk food is still vegan, but as far as full meals go it is usually easier to prepare a healthy meal than an unhealthy one.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

It gives me something better to shoot for, than just live, take what you want, and die.

So instead you live, do what you have to do to secure your eternal reward and die? Both approaches seem amazingly selfish to me. There are other options.

I qualified my initial response to jazzspazz, making a point to say that if he weren't making a general statement, I had no problem with it (while also taking a dig at him). Just because you can't read, doesn't mean I've said something hypocritical.

I don't care about what he believes, I care about ignorant blanket statements he makes that seem to imply something about me. Where did I say he was less of a person? You're reaching, big time (not unlike a certain Conan you've alluded to).

I think both you and JazzSpazz are just so defensive about your beliefs, you failed to actually read what I wrote. Like anyone, I have plenty of anger, but very little (if any) of it is directed at the church. Some of it is directed at people who make ignorant statements that seem to imply that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is a hopeless hedonistic *** hole. I don't think anger is a terribly inappropriate reaction (albeit not the best reaction) to statements like that.

In the future, read my post. Before reacting to it, pause for a second and think about it. I know that's hard for you. Then go ahead and respond.

Thank you.

This is the part of my original post you took exception to enough to quote.
This has your direct response to my post, and your last post directed to Troutbum but including me.

My statement, if you had taken your own advice and "Before reacting to it, pause for a second and think about it. I know that's hard for you. Then go ahead and respond. Thank you."...... you may have noticed that the quoted sentence uses the word "me" in it. If you read hard, you will notice that I am saying without my belief in the things I believe I would probably have a "live, take what you want, and die" approach to things. There is a huge lack of "general statement", or "ignorant blanket statement" that you have imagined up.

You have had quite a few hypocritical "arguments" in our posts back and forth that I addressed and let drop. I think it's hypocritical to take exception to something you think someone else is doing, and yet you do the same thing you think is happening but from the opposite side. I don't care enough to dig them up.

As to the "where did I say he was less of a person?" question, I will just give one example. It should be sufficient for most rational people.
Your first post directed at my first post you assume you know what I am living for by stating what you think I am living for, and then state that either of those options are "amazingly selfish". Even if you were completely right in your assumption, which you are only partially correct, am I to understand that in you referring to me as an "amazingly selfish" person, that you were not "saying" I am less of a person?

I agree that I have been defensive in this instance, I would rather defend myself, my statements, and my beliefs than let you state, and imply the things you were stating as if it were true. You were/are way off base. I would not have to defend if you chose not to attack.

I read everything you posted, more than once to make sure I did not overreact. You could probably see a couple of times I actually agreed, or partially agreed with some statement you made. If I was as defensive as you think I probably would not have allowed myself to agree with you on anything. I still think you need to let go of the anger, it's not healthy.

Please don't take offense to this, I'm not trying to be rude, but did you ever graduate from High School?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I was talking about the possible implication of a statement he made that wasn't directed at me. Keep up.

Wait, wut?

I thought you said I made ignorant blanket statements, and general statements. Isn't that why you thought they were directed at you?

If you didn't think it implied anything about you as you said a few posts ago, how can you think it wasn't "directed" at you now?

Get your story a little more straight.

 

[GVC]

I don't think I have an angry approach to the church, I just have an issue with people who regurgitate Sunday school ******** like "It gives me something better to shoot for, than just live, take what you want, and die". Statements like this read as extremely ignorant, condescending and dismissive to me (if you'll permit me to be redundant). If Jazzspazz was just trying to say he's an especially selfish person, who'd be an unrepentant hedonistic ******* without Jesus, I apologize if I responded harshly.

What you wrote can be taken a couple ways, and I obviously recognized that, as seen above(a couple posts later, but still before you responded).

 

[GVC]

If you didn't think it implied anything about you as you said a few posts ago, how can you think it wasn't "directed" at you now?

Because the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Archie Moses]

Wait, wut?

I thought you said I made ignorant blanket statements, and general statements. Isn't that why you thought they were directed at you?

If you didn't think it implied anything about you as you said a few posts ago, how can you think it wasn't "directed" at you now?

Get your story a little more straight.

And he wants me to keep up. hehepeepeecaca

 

[Jazz Spazz]

What you wrote can be taken a couple ways, and I obviously recognized that, as seen above(a couple posts later, but still before you responded).

I think what I would like to say here is, we probably have communication issues, and there is probably nothing to be offended about on either side.
Just issues with how we word things, as we think differently and say what we are thinking differently.

Is that fair?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I think what I would like to say here is, we probably have communication issues, and there is probably nothing to be offended about on either side.
Just issues with how we word things, as we think differently and say what we are thinking differently.

Is that fair?

I'm giving us an out to end this conversation.
Please take it.