John Larsen Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Anyone who not only refuses to document what they accuse of others of....and does it with juvenile taunts and tap dancing....is not likely to be treated like a king. It looks like you are refusing to document any of your claims at all. So all you are doing is taking up space. That doesn't pass muster here.Likewise, I keep getting accused of defamatory action, but no one has yet provided any evidence. It seems that calls for documentation on all sides are going unheeded. If you really believe that all I am doing is taking up space, than you should ban me. It's your board.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Several days ago, I was involved in a thread on another board. Like all threads, that one has context and each post existed in suti [sic] among the other responses. As I recall, the particular remark of yours to which I made reference was very brief, something along the lines of "I don't see how Smith could have expected he was going to die when he packed a pistol and sent for the Nauvoo Legion."It was those two very specific assertions that I questioned, and they could have easily been discussed and defended (assuming they were defensible) here without belaboring all the other discussion on peripheral points that was going on in the thread on the other board. In fact, as the dialogue here developed those points were discussed and effectively debunked.That board is public and the thread is open to anyone to participate. You rudely demanded that I drop what I was doing and reposition the entire debate over here so that you could have the privilege of participating in the conversation that I was holding with others.You needn't have dropped what you were doing. I'm a patient man. The two points can be answered easily: Did Joseph "pack a pistol," as you asserted, or was it provided to him in the jail by a concerned friend who had observed the gathering mobbers intent on murdering the Prophet? Can it be persuasively substantiated that Joseph sent for the Nauvoo Legion? We could have taken up those two questions here without reconstructing the entire thread on the other board. I invited to you come on in and join and that I would be happy to continue the discussion. You continued to insist that you would only have me defend my conversation over there on your terms over here. I indicated my reason: that I don't like the ambience there. And I don't. Snapping dogs annoy me.Your behavior on this point was boorish and childish. My "behavior," as such, was to challenge you on those two points, invite you to defend them here and to indicate that I don't feel comfortable at the other board. Hardly the stuff of boorishness and childishness.Also, your claims that critics are treated civilly here unfortunately doesn't always pass muster.That may or may not be; I don't concede to being uncivil.
Euthyphro Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Ever so often the Lord has to have some of His servants make the clarion call to wake up those who have been lulled into a false security and help them to understand that this is not a game we are playing, it is a battle for the souls of men. We fight to overcome Satan and his angels, we must declare His word and it must be shouted from the house tops. If it offends the devil and the ones engaged in his work then so be it. We cannot make a "peace treaty" with Lucifer or surrender our position. We must go on to victory!"You must understand, sir, a person is either with this Court or against it; there be no road between. This is a new time, a precise time; we live no longer in the dusky afternoon when evil mixed itself with good and befuddled the world. Now, by God's grace, the good folk and the evil entirely separate! I hope you will find your place with us."LB, usually when you post you read to me like Judge Danforth from the Arthur Miller play The Crucible. It's good to know where we stand I guess.
juliann Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Likewise, I keep getting accused of defamatory action, but no one has yet provided any evidence. It seems that calls for documentation on all sides are going unheeded. If you really believe that all I am doing is taking up space, than you should ban me. It's your board.And the juvenile taunts continue without any documentation in sight. How impressive.
ttribe Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 And the juvenile taunts continue without any documentation in sight. How impressive.Who's surprised?
Redefined Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Who's surprised?What I'm suprised about is that no one is willing to view their own "juvenile" comments as such.
ttribe Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 What I'm suprised about is that no one is willing to view their own "juvenile" comments as such.Such as?
LifeOnaPlate Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Your behavior on this point was boorish and childish. Also, your claims that critics are treated civilly here unfortunately doesn't always pass muster.I take it you realize that your claims regarding JS's martyrdom are baseless then?
Lightbearer Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 "You must understand, sir, a person is either with this Court or against it; there be no road between. This is a new time, a precise time; we live no longer in the dusky afternoon when evil mixed itself with good and befuddled the world. Now, by God's grace, the good folk and the evil entirely separate! I hope you will find your place with us."LB, usually when you post you read to me like Judge Danforth from the Arthur Miller play The Crucible. It's good to know where we stand I guess.I will take that as a compliment, although I do know it was not intended as such. Comparing me to a witch burner in Salem is a little extreme, but as long as we know where we stand. The above quote does sort of remind me of the following:(Matthew 12:30) "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."
Hestia Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Likewise, I keep getting accused of defamatory action, but no one has yet provided any evidence. It seems that calls for documentation on all sides are going unheeded. Since you are making accusations against the church you are expected to document the source for your claims. If you can't document them then don't make them.
Euthyphro Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I will take that as a compliment, although I do know it was not intended as such. Comparing me to a witch burner in Salem is a little extreme, but as long as we know where we stand. The above quote does sort of remind me of the following:I didn't think it would insult you.(Matthew 12:30) "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."What's left is to learn which of us is doing the scattering and which the gathering. Obviously one of us will be surprised to learn of Jesus' true nature when we meet Him at last. I believe He will have enough grace for both of us. It's a shame that what I believe wouldn't comfort you.
SilverKnight Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I didn't think it would insult you.What's left is to learn which of us is doing the scattering and which the gathering. Obviously one of us will be surprised to learn of Jesus' true nature when we meet Him at last. I believe He will have enough grace for both of us. It's a shame that what I believe wouldn't comfort you.It's rather rich that you compare Lightbearer to a Puritan witch-burner, when it is precisely that vein of Calvinism that your current belief is derived from.In other words, when it comes to burning, by witchhunters, inquisitors, clansmen and the heatmiser of the bible himself, LDS can't really hold a candle to you guys historically.
juliann Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Since you are making accusations against the church you are expected to document the source for your claims. If you can't document them then don't make them. I think any defamation needs to be documented no matter who is targeted. Since John is playing dodge ball, here is a replay of his defamatory accusation. He needs to produce something beyond the requisite (and scripted) atrocity tales that fill the internet.Whenever the brethren say anything that implies that those who leave the church are liars, have low integrity, are not to be trusted or crawl around--many of those who leave the Church will suffer daily because of how they are treated by those who believe they are low and evil.
LifeOnaPlate Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Odds on Danna returning to the discussion? She has posted on the other board as recently as last night at 9ish.
John Larsen Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Odds on Danna returning to the discussion? She has posted on the other board as recently as last night at 9ish.Creepy.
LifeOnaPlate Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Not really. I noticed the post time when I was reading a thread. John, why not find out for us? Or how about this: do you think Danna's position still stands regarding Elder Holland's description of the martyrdom? She literally fabricated quotes.
ttribe Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Creepy.Certainly no more so than Scratch's morbid fascination with DCP, or the latest analysis of LoaP's alleged emotional instability over this issue...both of which manifest themselves almost constantly over "there".
John Larsen Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I think any defamation needs to be documented no matter who is targeted. Since John is playing dodge ball, here is a replay of his defamatory accusation. He needs to produce something beyond the requisite (and scripted) atrocity tales that fill the internet.Who did I target for defamation? Besides that, you must think you have put me into some sort of clever bind. The Church obviously does not publish any information on its own instances of ecclesiastical abuse. However, you have disallowed the use of any first hand account of abuse because "Selective sob stories aren't documentation by anyone's definition". Pray tell, if I were to respond to your CFR what would that response look like?And lastly, who did I target for defamation?
John Larsen Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Certainly no more so than Scratch's morbid fascination with DCP, or the latest analysis of LoaP's alleged emotional instability over this issue...both of which manifest themselves almost constantly over "there".Fair enough, but are you really defending LoaP by comparing him to Scratch? I am no more responsible for the writings of Scratch then you are responsible for the ravings of Lostindc.
ttribe Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Fair enough, but are you really defending LoaP by comparing him to Scratch? I am no more responsible for the writings of Scratch then you are responsible for the ravings of Lostindc.Uhh no...just saying that it seems there is plenty of creepiness going on over at your other "home" that should give you pause in pointing out even a minor level of keeping track of someone's online activities around here. I gotta hand it to you though, you do have a talent for twisting people's words.
John Larsen Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Uhh no...just saying that it seems there is plenty of creepiness going on over at your other "home" that should give you pause in pointing out even a minor level of keeping track of someone's online activities around here. I gotta hand it to you though, you do have a talent for twisting people's words.If I am not mistaken, it is your other home too now. I post on 6 boards dealing with Mormonism, I owe allegiance to none. But I have done most of my posting on this board. While I haven't been posting here the longest, it has been over 5 years and I am one of the longest running posters. So if I "belong" to any board it is this one.
ttribe Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 If I am not mistaken, it is your other home too now. I post on 6 boards dealing with Mormonism, I owe allegiance to none. But I have done most of my posting on this board. While I haven't been posting here the longest, it has been over 5 years and I am one of the longest running posters. So if I "belong" to any board it is this one.You are mistaken...I entered one thread to correct a wholesale misrepresentation of something I said over here. I posted in one other thread to provide some links to LDS.org to refute the hysterical notion that the Church has never said or published anything about Solomon Spaulding or Ethan Smith. I'm sure you are very disappointed to discover that I don't intend to make myself a regular participant. You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to tell us all just how liberated you are over there...are we not to interpret this as expression of a preference?
Deborah Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Pray tell, if I were to respond to your CFR what would that response look like?Personal anecdotes of how individual family members or others have treated apostates are not documentation of the church teaching such things. In fact as I said before people often misinterpret the reactions of others or may only relate what they think someone else wants to hear. Where has the church taught that those who leave the church should be treated in such away? The church has taught over an over to be patient with and not reject those who leave but keep the door open. I
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.