The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Baeth_Ku]

And neither I you.  But at least I don't expose myself by making false assertions without backing them up with references!!! Where's your's?

I apologize for not having references at hand. Thanks to those who provide them later on in the thread (USU I think?). You will also find that I have not made false assertions. Rather, I made pretty accurate assertions without providing references.

Scott Lloyd has answered that ridiculous assertion earlier.

I am sorry that you feel the need to treat me like an enemy based on your misperception of my intentions, your disagreement with me, etc. I think it would be more fair to say that Scott does not agree with my perspective, but that hardly makes it ridiculous. Your characterization of them as such doesn't either.

When did Mr. Burns say, "Release the hounds!"?

[Scott Lloyd]

As for Joseph having himself crowned king, this was in relation to an experimental, prototype administration of the sort that might be in place after Christ does come. And beyond serving as something of a committee for his campaign for U.S. presidency, it had no immediate relevancy or intent in a civil-government context.

Sorry to burst your bubble, as well, but John Taylor was likewise ordained a "king" by the Council of Fifty on February 4, 1885, some 41 years after Joseph's presidential campaign (Quinn, Origins of Power, p. 124).

How is that supposed to burst my bubble?

Never mind, I prefer to read my Church history in context.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Others, good Church members and FAIR warriors, haven't much use at all for that miserable excuse for an imposition upon the good taxpayers of Provo, may it rot.

In addition to the Provo taxpayers, don't forget about all us tithepayers (presuming you are included) who do our part to greatly subsidize "BYWho."

[Rollo Tomasi]

How is that supposed to burst my bubble?

You seemed to be saying that the Council of Fifty (and its kingly ordinations) primarily existed for JS's 1844 presidential campaign, when in fact it existed and was active for many decades thereafter.

[Scott Lloyd]

How is that supposed to burst my bubble?

You seemed to be saying that the Council of Fifty (and its kingly ordinations) primarily existed for JS's 1844 presidential campaign, when in fact it existed and was active for many decades thereafter.

I don't recall saying it existed "primarily" for that purpose.

[gtaggart]

(gtaggart @ Nov 8 2005, 12:44 PM)For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

USU "Do I really have to explain?" 78

Apparently, I do.

This: "I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University." is the problem.

Not everybody cares much at all about what I affectionately refer to as the parochial stench. Others care deeply. Others, good Church members and FAIR warriors, haven't much use at all for that miserable excuse for an imposition upon the good taxpayers of Provo, may it rot.

Calling it "The L---'s University" is an insult to every other University.

Knock it off.

Oh, and here I thought you were being humorous. Silly me.

Things you might have asked before you lashed out:

1. When you refer to BYU as "The L_ _ _'s University" are you being ironic?

2. Do you ever use the phrase "The L_ _ _'s Univerity" seriously?

3. If the phrase irks anyone from that school in Cache Valley (or their cheerleaders named Rollo), do you use it any way?

The answers are yes, never, and depends.

Take an asprin, get some sleep, and drink lots of liquids. You'll feel better in the morning.

Go Cougars!

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't recall saying it existed "primarily" for that purpose.

That's why I used the word "seemed." If you would like to clarify your prior statement about the Council of Fifty, then feel free.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps Rollo failed to grasp this because he, himself, seems to be unclear on the proper use of quotation marks, a fact in evidence on those frequent occasions when he puts them around words that are not quotations of anyone or anything in particular -- except, perhaps, a quotation of himself from a straw man of his own contriving.

Nice personal attack. Let's at least try to keep this derailed thread on topic.

It is on topic. The bogus use of quotation marks is deceptive, since it tends to make readers think someone said something that he did not say.

Since it is deceptive, I say you should cease the practice.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The bogus use of quotation marks is deceptive, since it tends to make readers think someone said something that he did not say.

Since it is deceptive, I say you should cease the practice.

It's not deceptive at all. What is deceptive is when you describe the Council of Fifty (and its kingly ordinations) as little more than a footnote in LDS history (see your post above) when you know it continued to exist and act for many decades thereafter.

[USU78]

The bogus use of quotation marks is deceptive, since it tends to make readers think someone said something that he did not say.

Since it is deceptive, I say you should cease the practice.

It's not deceptive at all. What is deceptive is when you describe the Council of Fifty (and its kingly ordinations) as little more than a footnote in LDS history (see your post above) when you know it continued to exist and act for many decades thereafter.

What, pray, does Melchizedek mean?

[gtaggart]

The bogus use of quotation marks is deceptive, since it tends to make readers think someone said something that he did not say.

Since it is deceptive, I say you should cease the practice.

It's not deceptive at all. . . .

As if any further proof were needed.

[USU78]

or their cheerleaders named Rollo

Now, let's not get nasty, shall we?

[Rollo Tomasi]

It's not deceptive at all. . . .

[gtaggart]

or their cheerleaders named Rollo

Now, let's not get nasty, shall we?

Okay, you've got your sense of humor back. I'll stop being nasty.

[Rollo Tomasi]

What, pray, does Melchizedek mean?

I don't think I'm following you. Joseph received the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829, but the Council of Fifty didn't ordain Joseph a "King" until 1844, some 15 years later.

[Rollo Tomasi]

or their cheerleaders named Rollo

Now, let's not get nasty, shall we?

I don't have the legs to be a cheeleader.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: Scott said:

As for Joseph having himself crowned king, this was in relation to an experimental, prototype administration of the sort that might be in place after Christ does come. And beyond serving as something of a committee for his campaign for U.S. presidency, it had no immediate relevancy or intent in a civil-government context.

Now Scott says:

I don't recall saying it existed "primarily" for that [JS's 1844 presidential campaign] purpose.

What did you mean in the first quote, Scott? What was the primary purpose of Joseph having himself crowned king?

[Scott Lloyd]

The bogus use of quotation marks is deceptive, since it tends to make readers think someone said something that he did not say.

Since it is deceptive, I say you should cease the practice.

It's not deceptive at all. What is deceptive is when you describe the Council of Fifty (and its kingly ordinations) as little more than a footnote in LDS history (see your post above) when you know it continued to exist and act for many decades thereafter.

I didn't describe it as that. But at least you didn't put "little more than a footnote in history" -- or any portion thereof -- in quotation marks.

Maybe I'm getting through to you.

[gtaggart]

It's not deceptive at all. . . .

As if any further proof were needed.

[Scott Lloyd]

from the Pickle jar: Scott said:

As for Joseph having himself crowned king, this was in relation to an experimental, prototype administration of the sort that might be in place after Christ does come. And beyond serving as something of a committee for his campaign for U.S. presidency, it had no immediate relevancy or intent in a civil-government context.

Now Scott says:

I don't recall saying it existed "primarily" for that [JS's 1844 presidential campaign] purpose.

What did you mean in the first quote, Scott? What was the primary purpose of Joseph having himself crowned king?

I don't know much about it, but my impression is that one purpose was that an earthly administration would be already in place for the coming of Jesus Christ in glory.

I didn't express an opinion as to the "primary purpose," as you will see -- and must honestly admit -- if you will look carefully at that quoted snippet.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I didn't describe it as that. But at least you didn't put "little more than a footnote in history" -- or any portion thereof -- in quotation marks.

Maybe I'm getting through to you.

But apparently I'm not getting through to you, because that is indeed how you described the Council of Fifty. Please feel free to clarify your original statement on the matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't describe it as that. But at least you didn't put "little more than a footnote in history" -- or any portion thereof -- in quotation marks.

Maybe I'm getting through to you.

But apparently I'm not getting through to you, because that is indeed how you described the Council of Fifty. Please feel free to clarify your original statement on the matter.

So you can further misconstrue and misrepresent what I say -- even to the point, perhaps, of putting words in quotation marks that I did not use? No thanks.

[USU78]

What, pray, does Melchizedek mean?

I don't think I'm following you. Joseph received the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829, but the Council of Fifty didn't ordain Joseph a "King" until 1844, some 15 years later.

Melchi-zedek {מלכ-צדך} (Heb. lit. King-Priest or King of Righteousness) is understood in LDS thought to be both a person (the King-Priest of Salem who was high king to Abraham's local king and to whom Abraham owed political and priestly allegience) and the name of the authority from G-d to act in His name, both in matters spiritual and mundane, since, after all, "[A]ll things unto me are spiritual," D&C 29:34.

It is, accordingly, not a surprising thing at all to have JSJr., G-d's Kohen haGadol on earth at the time, to be annointed King as well as Priest.

Only somebody with a reason to hate G-d's saints would find the above to be in any way disturbing.

And only a government with cause to be concerned that G-d's Kingdom should come out of obscurity and fill the whole earth would send troops against any such King-Priest.

Assuming Rollo is who he says he is, he also is a king-priest. Should we be concerned that Rollo is stockpiling weapons?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Scott is spot on. You often use quotation marks in a misleading fashion, making it appear that the quoted words came from your source when they in fact don't. The most recent example is your placing quotes around the words "bury embarrassing" when you alleged that Elder Packer counseled to hide embarrassing facts. I called you on it because he never used those words, yet you put them in quotes as if he had.

I can't believe I have teach grammar to an English teacher such as yourself, or to a professional writer like Scott, but here goes anyway:

The examples you raise (the "bury embarrassing facts" reference in the Packer discussion is a good one) are not quotes of verbatim words from a text. The quote marks that you cite I have used to reflect either a phrase of art, or a figure of speech, or a proverbial expression, or to call attention to a particular concept.

Hope this clarifies any confusion.

[Rollo Tomasi]

So you can further misconstrue and misrepresent what I say -- even to the point, perhaps, of putting words in quotation marks that I did not use? No thanks.

You typed the words, friend. If you want to go back and edit your post in order to clarify, please feel free.