Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PacMan

  1. Agreed. I have also found that this narcissism manifests itself with these people in really believing they think they know something others don’t know. And they’re weird about it. Like it’s a hide and seek game of mysteries; and while they tell everyone about the game, only they know the rules.
  2. I attended a legal CLE he presented. I was both unimpressed and came away with the impression that he thinks much about himself - unjustifiably so. I also think he came off as a bit quirky.
  3. I’m open to discussing any reasonable analysis. One as blatantly, arrogantly, and recklessly incorrect as this one is not reasonable. She believes what she believes because she wants to believe it. And no amount of discussing facts will change her mind.
  4. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It doesn’t make it right or credible. She made blatant factually and demonstrably incorrect statements. She’s wrong. And that reflects in the credibility of her sweeping opinions and conclusions. She has none. Now, you want to emphasize that she isn’t wrong in everything. That she got some things right. Let’s go with that. She is making wild accusations by extrapolating the unfortunate exceptions to something bigger than it really is. If she can irresponsibly paint the “church” based on the brush dipped in the paint of exceptions, then I, using her methodology, can note that her instances of error are representative of her analysis as a whole. Shes not credible anyway you cut it.
  5. She’s not just overstating things - she’s just wrong. I can think of a couple things. (1) The Primary President (a woman) is over both our Cub Scout leaders (and Cub Scout Committee Chair - a man) as well as our Boy Scout leaders (men) over the 11 year olds. This includes budgeting. (2) Our music chair (a woman) is over our other music callings, which include men. (3) The RS President is effectively “over” families needing certain welfare help - including men (not so for EQ). YM/YW is a wash, so what’s left is SS and Bishopric/Stake Presidency. But, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. I’d also suggest everyone stay tuned for conference....
  6. In our stake, I’ve heard the term “prophetic priority.” The concept makes sense to me. But, while we identify talks to “assign,” the invitation is to pick a principle in the talk that the speaker feels inspired to speak about. So while giving priority to prophetic messages, it generally avoids the re-hash problem.
  7. I’d deny the request. It’s actually not up to the Bishopric. It’s up to the ward council to plan sacrament meeting topics.
  8. I haven't passed any judgment on Louis Smart (if I were, it would be that she is 100% a victim that doesn't deserve any of the pain Ed is causing). But Ed's statement speaks for himself. This was Ed's decision. Do I think the real details will reveal that Ed is a disgusting philandering homosexual? Possibly. But my post has nothing to do with assumptions or jumping to conclusions. I am basing it solely off of what he wrote in his FB post. I'm giving Ed the benefit of the doubt that his culpability/disgustability is limited to what he wrote.
  9. Could someone please address the obvious? Ed Smart enters into a long-term committed relationship with a woman that he loves, that loved him, that was completely loyal to him, and with her has children. He then decides that he wants to pursue a gay relationship to be 'authentic,' 'true to himself,' or [enter any other lame justification here]. How is that any different than a man leaving his wonderful brunet wife for some hot-blond down the street? What if he was always truly attracted to blonds, ever since he was a child? But, for one reason or another, he decided to repress that feeling in favor of beginning a committed and loving relationship with someone that doesn't fit that mold. Should we applaud him for being 'authentic?' At the end of the day, Ed Smart made a decision. And it has nothing to do with being gay. He decided to abandon his integrity and wife for something else. In any event, I've always think he carried a major creep factor. Ironic how being gay has become the great justification for all sorts of immoral conduct.
  10. You're the one that made a statement of fact. The burden of proof is your problem. Although you highlight another great indicator of the type of people that leave the church--those with an arrogant narrow-mindedness that their small sliver of information is representative of the comprehensive whole, when it is not.
  11. You are a perfect example of the type of people that leave the church. I make a comment about those that are inactive. You rebut it by twisting it into a comment about those that are "struggling though they are active." You comment is completely unreponsive to what I said. Just like your demand to discuss the "substance" of polygamy when "Quinton R. Ford's" post said nothing about it. No wonder you buy into the CES Letter. You can't distinguish between an apple and a hippopotamus. Tell you what - if you want to talk about polygamy, open a thread and let's debate it. But don't derail the thread here. But be warned - if you open the thread, you better be prepared to answer one question: Why does it freaking matter? You can't support your answer--whatever it is.
  12. People care about the letter. But people don't care about Jeremy. Jeremy is a fraud. He has perpetuated this letter as a "sincere" attempt to find answers. It is not sincere. Not in the least. He has appointed a board to edit what he originally wrote after it was established that he repeatedly didn't know what he was talking about. And he promulgates it all the same as if it were the original. Many people have raised questions about church history over the years, including Quinn and the Tanners. Jeremy is neither. Jeremy is a regurgitating hack. And if he thinks he's smart, then I personally invite him to debate on any of the issues he has in that letter in a rotating format - he can go first. But he won't do it - you want to know why? Because he runs away when he's challenged. He is not very smart. In another forum where his disciples were praising him, I asked him about the timing of his letter and how it is that he can maintain its sincerity given its editorial board, and further asked how the CES Director refused to answer questions in the letter which didn't exist at the time he allegedly sent it to the CES Director. Wanna know what happened? Jeremy ran away. Just like John Dehlin. Had to find a "safe place" that was good for his mental health. I kid you not. These guys are cowards and charlatans.
  13. CFR your speculative nonsense. I can say that not a single member in our ward is inactive because of church history issues.
  14. I am sorry, but you are grossly deceived. If you think there's not much that Runnells got wrong, then you are about 5 years behind the times. Runnells's fraud-job is full of misrepresentation, proof-text, naked citations, and unfounded speculation. There are legitimate questions to be asked, but those questions are not in the oft-edited letter. That you equate "effectiveness" with causing members to leave the church (as opposed to discovering truth) both reveals the disingenuous nature of the letter and your disdain for it. There's a special place in hell reserved for Jeremy Runnells.
  15. CFR the content. There was nothing but spurious conclusory comments that unnamed questions need answering.
  16. Hey, Jeremy, before you go trolling old posts about yourself (because no one cares about you anymore), remember that you have been fully exposed and excoriated for the dishonest way the CES Letter frames alleged issues. If you haven't seen it, go watch the recent FairMormon Conference in 2019 in which Scott Gordon completely exposes you (reminds us) for the fraud that you are. Further, I was always so curious how someone can demand answers to "sincere" questions, and then appoint an editorial board to expound on the "sincere" questions that are dishonestly represented as having been asked by a CES director and never answered. If you want the greatest anachronism of all, it's the content of the CES Letter itself--written AFTER it was purportedly posed to CES. Dishonest and poorly crafted from top to bottom. A question only deserves an answer if the question is legitimate. Not so with the CES Letter.
  17. In our ward, you don’t find husband and wife talking together. I think that sends the wrong message anyway (that you need to be married to contribute). And you regularly find women as the last speaker or give the benediction in our meetings. I think this is common - for example, what of when sisters giving their mission reports? I guarantee they are almost always last (except for last week when our high councilman asked the missionary to go first so she could take all the time she wanted - which she did, leaving him about 3 minutes after skipping the intermediate hymn). In fact, last week it was also one of the young women that gave the closing prayer. On one occasion, we had an older service couple speak. I asked the sister if she wanted to go first or last. She said, “We’ll let the priesthood conclude.” I almost informed her that her husband is not “the priesthood” and that he has no authority in our ward anyway. I exercised better judgment and refrained.
  18. I’d make a couple of anecdotes. First, the number of different women that speak in our stake conferences grossly outnumbers men (of course, the stake presidency are repeat speakers). Second, where the Young Women Presidency is asked for counselor recommendations, the Young Men Presidency is not. That is decided entirely by the Bishopric. Third, the women in our ward councils own the meeting. They are not mere flowers. Fourth, the RS is budgeted close to 10 times the amount as the EQ. Does that change the fact that men “run” the church? No. But it mitigates the false perception that being in charge means some gross and broad inequity. In fact, to Wendy Ulrich’s point, Priesthood power is available to all and conditioned on the same Christlike attributes - men and women alike.
  19. This is pretty silly. On a tour of the St. Peter’s with a Catholic professor of religion (who is a priest), he mentioned that the Catholics note “the 12....and then there’s Paul.” Exactly what Paul is as an apostles and what that means is traditionally murky for most Christians. But Paul was an ordained apostle, per 1 Tim 2:7. So I don’t understand the comments mentioned as to us LDS.
  20. The mere fact that she lists so many aspects of church history that she disagrees with suggests that there is not a single one that is "material." This is going to go into my legal pleadings collection that I affectionately call, the "Binder of Shame."
  21. This complaint is pretty embarrassing. I’d seriously consider striking the complaint and sanctioning the attorney. The fraud allegations are a mere restatement of the legal elements, which have been repeatedly held as insufficiently pled. It’s really, really bad.
  22. A little historical update from Fitzmeyer:
  23. Given the Agrippas' relationships with the Caesars (Agrippa II's sister Bernice, for example, had a little someth'n someth'n going on with Titus (in his pre-emperor days), I would suspect that it wasn't as big of a deal to send Paul to Nero as it might seem today.
  24. The dude is just losing it. I really wonder if he has some mental health issues.
  • Create New...