The plan at this point seems to be to withhold release of Greg Smith's article and force us to rely on those who claim to have read it.
The very fact the paper itself has been suppressed is itself suggestive.
Interesting conspiracy theory. More interesting is how it violates the "capital mistake" you recently espoused. You really ought to use an hypocrisy checker prior to posting.
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
Interesting conspiracy theory. More interesting is how it violates the "capital mistake" you recently espoused. You really ought to use an hypocrisy checker prior to posting.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
It is a fact that a 100-page paper written by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin exists. (Unless you would care to dispute it.)
It is a fact that it has not been published in the FARMS Review, though it was slated to be.
It is a fact that it has not been made available to the general public, which indicates the author does not want it to be made available.
It is a fact that certain persons claim to have read the manuscript and without giving any details are yet not reticent to give their opinion.
The fact a person refuses to produce evidence for inspection is itself evidence.
Funny that Wade should rhyme with Lestrade.
Good evening, Inspector.
Edited by John Ping Pong, 04 July 2012 - 09:10 AM.
It is a fact that it has not been made available to the general public, which indicates the author does not want it to be made available.
The author does not want it to be made public until he is fully aware of why it was suppressed in the first place. Unlike certain others I will not mention, he is not prone to rely on rumours and rumours of rumours for making his judgments. He prefers actual facts, not made up ones. IOW, he is a man of integrity and wisdom.
Your above argument is so full of gaps and assumptions in place of actual facts and correct inferences that I am surprised your avatar is not hiding his face. He would be ashamed if it had been him.
Edited by calmoriah, 04 July 2012 - 09:25 AM.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
It is a fact that a 100-page paper written by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin exists. (Unless you would care to dispute it.)
It is a fact that it has not been published in the FARMS Review, though it was slated to be.
It is a fact that it has not been made available to the general public, which indicates the author does not want it to be made available.
It is a fact that certain persons claim to have read the manuscript and without giving any details are yet not reticent to give their opinion.
The fact a person refuses to produce evidence for inspection is itself evidence.
Funny that Wade should rhyme with Lestrade.
Good evening, Inspector.
In all your exuberance to list facts, you missed the most important, and only relevant fact of all--i.e. the fact that we do not have the pertinent facts as to why, exactly, the article has yet to be publishes, which means we do not have the facts as to any alleged "plan", let alone a plan to "withhold" the article for the purpose of "forcing us to rely those claiming to have read it," or that he "doesn't want it made or available," or "refuses to produce evidence for inspection." This means that you didn't have the pertinent data prior to theorizing, and thus made the "capital mistake" you previous cautioned against. In short, you quickly showed yourself to be a hypocrite.
And, since you seem open to finding humorous connection with names, you will get a good laugh out of the fact that your chosen screen name is euphemistically connected with out houses, which I find remarkably apropos given the quality of your posts.
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
The author does not want it to be made public until he is fully aware of why it was suppressed in the first place. Unlike certain others I will not mention, he is not prone to rely on rumours and rumours of rumours for making his judgments. He prefers actual facts, not made up ones. IOW, he is a man of integrity and wisdom.
I am afraid it is you who appear to be making up facts as you go along, now.
calmoriah, on 04 July 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:
Your above argument is so full of gaps and assumptions in place of actual facts and correct inferences that I am surprised your avatar is not hiding his face. He would be ashamed if it had been him.
Nonsense. You are too timid in drawing your inferences.
And, since you seem open to finding humorous connection with names, you will get a good laugh out of the fact that your chosen screen name is euphemistically connected with out houses, which I find remarkably apropos given the quality of your posts.
While it is true that I am not a fan of Louis Prima (one tends not to be a fan of people one has never heard of), there is no data in my post upon which to theorized this, let alone presume that it "appears" such...which brings us once again ironically to your quote about "capital mistake." LOL
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
What does this have to do with my contention that the LDS Church has not backed off the "one true church" thing?
Not much. However, the problem here is simple: general authorities say things all the time. And it is always amazing that quotations are pulled out of a hat to make a point about the lds church. Since GAs say things and their writings and speeches are in church publications, it becomes very difficult to make a point about a general trend. Lets look at it this way: over a hundred years ago, BY makes a statement which is recorded by a second person and then suddenly this quotation is pulled out of a hat in 2012 to make a point about lds beliefs. Does that make sense?
I think that the poster was referring to the fact that the general trend is to stress something else besides the one, true church.
Edited by why me, 04 July 2012 - 12:11 PM.
Joseph Smith Quotes
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
It is a fact that a 100-page paper written by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin exists. (Unless you would care to dispute it.)
It is a fact that it has not been published in the FARMS Review, though it was slated to be.
It is a fact that it has not been made available to the general public, which indicates the author does not want it to be made available.
.
Good evening, Inspector.
This is not true. The paper will eventually come forth. Finding space for a large paper is not easy. Most journals have been reserved for articles for at least a couple of months. And then one must find a publication to put the piece in.
Joseph Smith Quotes
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
I am afraid it is you who appear to be making up facts as you go along, now.
No, I am not. I know the man and have talked with him on this very subject. He will not make a decision about releasing the paper publicly until he knows enough of the facts for the suppression of the paper by Dr. Bradford....and for that to happen people need to talk to him, including some that are unavailable to do so at this time.
As I said, a man of integrity and honour and wisdom...and patience when necessary, which is what everyone wants more of in the discussion it would seem, though sadly so many proclaiming the need seem to lack those qualities for themselves.
Quote
Nonsense. You are too timid in drawing your inferences.
Very well then. I infer that you are a poser. And I am not defining that as a "difficult or perplexing question or problem".
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Would Bruce R. McConkie calling critics of the church "dogs" be an ad hominem? I would say it is. I say it gives his talk some teeth. I also recall a very great person calling pharisees "whited sepulchers"
In my opinion I like Daniel C. Petersons style. I also like Pahoran and Seleks too.
Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance.
While it is true that I am not a fan of Louis Prima (one tends not to be a fan of people one has never heard of), there is no data in my post upon which to theorized this, let alone presume that it "appears" such...which brings us once again ironically to your quote about "capital mistake." LOL
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade you poor soul. Let me fix the glaring omission for you,
Please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe. Hint- start here: http://lds.org/scriptures/
What does this have to do with my contention that the LDS Church has not backed off the "one true church" thing?
We have not backed off the idea that we are Christ's established church with His full authority in this dispensation. We have gotten kinder and gentler in dealing with other faiths and recognizing their truths (see Paul's admonition).
The difference is in the emPHasis.
If you are holding your breath waiting for the LDS to accept other religions as authoritative when it comes to the ordinances and priesthood don't bother. The restoration of the Gospel is a foundational belief.
Please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe. Hint- start here: http://lds.org/scriptures/
Wade you poor soul. Let me fix the glaring omission for you,
I am sorry, but I keep getting distracted by the lady's outfit (it has been decades since I have seen the barely shrouded manifestation of a bullet-bra), so I am not sure how this makes JPP's point.
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
I am sorry, but I keep getting distracted by the lady's outfit (it has been decades since I have seen the barely shrouded manifestation of a bullet-bra), so I am not sure how this makes JPP's point.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
It has nothing to do with his point at all. I just felt bad for anyone lacking Louis Prima exposure. Here is some more (v09ce only):
Edited by KevinG, 05 July 2012 - 12:40 PM.
Please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe. Hint- start here: http://lds.org/scriptures/
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
While the tone of much of Mormon Apologetics is discourteous and annoying,
Would it be too much at this point, and given that this has become what appears to be the central internal mythology of the NOM intelligentsia confronting the "TBM" LDS world as of late, to ask for some clear and concise examples of this discourteous and annoying "tone?" Even better would be some examples of the "attack dog" style now being claimed to have been prevelant at FARMS for many years.
I only ask because I've been waiting for years at another board for such examples, and my example pantry is still empty.
And what is that tone. Be precise. Please also... consider whether this is a general tone of Mormon apologetics or if it is a very narrow instance. Please be ready to support your assertions.
Yes...examples, what has been lacking from the entire exmo Internet fraternity for as long as this has been asserted.
0
John Ping Pong, on 04 July 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:
