You state:
“More than a couple have expressed that your comments are meant to instill distrust and ill-will rather than goodwill and love.”

Why are you telling me what I mean? Can you read minds?

No, I won’t tell you what you mean by your cracks; I don’t know enough. As you insist, I’m too stupid.

You resent any attempt to “condemn or psychoanalyze me.” That’s nice, but I do neither, as I am utterly incompetent to do them. I’m merely trying to understand.

I DO have a question: Why are you condemning ME, since you don’t like others condemning you? Are you my Judge?

You assert: “I have never called you evil, non-Christian, or actually even stupid. I have stated that some of your behavior is non-Christian….”

I suggest that you reread your comments, Sir. You have gone beyond speaking of behaviour to commenting on my state of being. You earlier stated that Jesus “trie[d] to persuade.” Perhaps you ought to adjust your tactics to better conform with your stated ideal–and I will certainly do likewise, at any event.

You ask: “Can you honestly say that you have felt God’s spirit as you’ve been writing as you earlier claimed?”

Yes, I can. However, just because the sentiment might be right, it does not follow that there aren’t flaws in my execution.

You rightly say that “The gospel of Jesus Christ is about repentance and forgiveness.” Perhaps we ALL need to learn about that–or should I bow down and worship your divine presence? Your question above appears to imply that I am a liar. As a demonstration of my knowledge of what the Gospel is about, I forgive you of any slight in that implication, Sir–whether intended or not.

You claim, “My asking you to calm down and present rational arguments is not withholding consideration from Catholics.” True enough, but I didn’t make that assertion. However, your earlier question, “Do we give them a sticker?” DOES appear to be “withholding consideration from Catholics.”

You protest, “You have NO KNOWLEDGE of my consideration for Catholics.” That is VERY true. I have no knowledge of any consideration, because up to now, I have utterly failed to detect any in the comments you’ve made.

You deride me because “some of your assumptions are incorrect, especially about statistics.” How could I make incorrect statistical assumptions, when I’ve made NO statistical assumptions AT ALL? True, I’ve made inferences based on my experience and observation, but they come with all the caveats implied with such observations. I’ve neither asserted nor implied that the plural of anecdote is “data,” and I suggest that if you think so, perhaps you ought to reread what I wrote more carefully.

Until you do, I see little that warrants complaining about any misreading I may be guilty of….

You command me to “Stick to what you’re good at.” Since you’ve made if crystal clear that I am good for nothing, perhaps YOU’D like to dispatch me to hell, as I am MUCH too lazy, stupid, and evil to go there myself!

Have a nice life!

Please see UPDATE3.

Thanks for the input. That’s the reason I writing: To generate discussion. I hope you and other readers find edification and intellectual and spiritual stimulation.

The second phrase pointed to the first, but perhaps I didn’t make that clear. You should notice I didn’t say we need less women and more men in our discussions, but that we need less emotionally, illogical rhetoric, because then we can focus on issues, and NOT emotion. Although stereotypes are NEVER completely true, they are seldom completely false. I have met many women with whom I enjoy conversing. However, these are not the stereotypical, “womanly” attitude supported and portrayed by modern media. What I was trying to say, is anyone (male or female) who relies on emotive arguments, rather than fact, reason, and logic, impedes true discussion that can lead to an actual conclusion.
I hope that explains my reasoning a little. I’m sorry if you felt I was thinking that all women are without logic, I don’t believe that. But I do believe that abandoning logic and getting emotional during an argument is a sign of mental weakness.

Quoting your 3/19 6:10 pm post:

“We need fewer emotionally nutso women (or men acting like women) and more intellectually and spiritually mature people trying to be reasoned and loving.”

Did I read that correctly? And as members we wonder why our Mormon culture is criticized as being one that subjugates women? Your comment is of the type that invites yet another label for our Mormon culture: misogynistic.

How can your statement do this? The ease with which that type of language embedded itself into your argument suggests you are (or were) not even aware of its presence, or of its ugliness. Readers may be impressed that the social tone set by such chauvinistic rhetoric is representative of this online community (which, correct me if I’m wrong, is largely if not wholly a Mormon community), and thus representative of Mormonism on the whole. Language like that and the social ignorance behind it is cancerous.

Please understand that I am not calling you as a person ignorant. But your choice of language was.

Thank you all for the lively discussion. This is my first visit to the site.

“I also presume that MANY Wards have people like them.” The road to hell was made with many presumptions and good intentions. I hope you haven’t forgotten when an assumption really is. AS-S-U-ME. Include real data rather than emotive arguments and you may change minds rather than rile people up.