Daniel Peterson Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 I commented that there was a certain level of "mean-ness" in this thread based on the time I spent reading it. If you would like an accurate explanation of that comment, instead of what you presume, I'd be glad to clarify.Clarify away!
Scott Lloyd Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Hello Daniel,I commented that there was a certain level of "mean-ness" in this thread based on the time I spent reading it. If you would like an accurate explanation of that comment, instead of what you presume, I'd be glad to clarify.JGFeel free to go ahead and clarify for others who might be reading here also.
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I simply posted what you wrote, with minimal comment. I didn't even say where it was posted, and I didn't identify you.Are your comments absurd? Yes, I think so. That's not my fault, though.P.S. I notice that, over on the Sweetness and Light and Charity Board, where my Malevolent Stalker holds forth and where these recent comments about Elder Packer and the Brethren were posted, it has been determined that this thread is mean-spirited (presumably toward those humble and earnest souls who accuse the Brethren of glutting themselves on the labors of the poor, the widows, and the orphaned), that it reveals my disturbingly unchristian character, and that it illustrates my Jekyll-and-Hyde personality (in real life, relatively decent, more or less, but, on line, horrifyingly vicious).It's a mad, mad, mad worldDCP,If you have a clear conscience that your pasting of my posts follows the guidelines of MAD or is acceptable to those guidelines and the owners hereof, then I'm fine with it. Let your conscience be your guide.You do know, however, you can post on the other board and need not reply to anyone. Drive by shootings are welcome on the other board! Try it, you'll like it. Paul O
Daniel Peterson Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 If you have a clear conscience that your pasting of my posts follows the guidelines of MAD or is acceptable to those guidelines and the owners hereof, then I'm fine with it. Let your conscience be your guide.I typically do.I feel perfectly fine about quoting you. I see nothing unethical about it. I didn't distort what you've written. I haven't misrepresented you. No problem.You do know, however, you can post on the other board and need not reply to anyone. Drive by shootings are welcome on the other board! Try it, you'll like it.I'm done with that board.Life is good.
Anijen Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I for one enjoy the insults heaped upon Brother Peterson. Why? Because it brings out his humor and I get to see those others make total fools of themselves. Perhaps they feel the need to gang up on him because they simply cant argue with his logic. ~~~>Anijen reaching for the popcorn.
Jersey Girl Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Clarify away!Let me figure out the quote feature here so I can pick up the posts I'm thinking of when I started reading the thread from current posts going back.
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 As to fame and recognition, I dare say Uchdorf would have done better in the German Parliament than in the quorum of the Seventy or even as an apostle. He could very easily have risen higher in the ranks of Lufthansa or used his connections in order to run a good sized portion of Airbus..... And received greater acclaim than belonging to a much smaller pond or religious group which is openly disdained and besieged by people who hold a prejudice against it, for no other reason than they dislike MormonsI tend to think that the perks of being a modern day member of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is extremely attractive to anyone who desires money, fame, and security. Forget big government and corporations! Being at the top of the church is like going to the moon!Anyone in favor of making me the new President of the Church? Just say, "Yes". Paul O
Scott Lloyd Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Let me figure out the quote feature here so I can pick up the posts I'm thinking of when I started reading the thread from current posts going back.When you post something, there's an icon near the top of the text field that looks like a dialog balloon in a comic strip. Highlight what you want to appear as quoted material, and then click on that icon. Also, the text you are replying to is already in quote mode. If you want to interlineate a comment, cut the ending delineator off the quoted material and paste it where you want the quote to end.
Jersey Girl Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Combined response...live with it. Scott,Thanks. I'm not that dedicated! Just bear with me here.Daniel,This is a copy of my post which I assumed you referred to in your post as a criticism of "mean spirited" on your part. I haven't read all of the replies on the other board. Tell me if this is what you were referring to.Um, I just looked at that thread for a few minutes. I don't understand what's going on there. Honestly.There is some level of mean-ness that is, at the very least, unnecessary.Don't get it. Don't wanna get it.Is that it?
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I typically do.I feel perfectly fine about quoting you. I see nothing unethical about it. I didn't distort what you've written. I haven't misrepresented you. No problemWell then, I have no problem with it because I take you at your word. Do as you will. The owners of this board have the final say.And I love you too. Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 That doesn't answer the question - how do you know the CHURCH bought the second home?Would it shake your testimony if you learned that the Church did pay for his second home and provide lavish things to adorn it?Paul O
Deborah Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I tend to think that the perks of being a modern day member of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is extremely attractive to anyone who desires money, fame, and security. You are far off the deep end here. No one seeks to be a member of the First Presidency. It is a full time job with the burden of the world on one's shoulders. The fame is pretty much among church members only. What I have seen of these men indicates a great humility. You or someone mentioned members being happy to have them in their homes. Now if these men were all as greedy as you paint them wouldn't they prefer to stay in a 5 star hotel than a humble Stake President's house? This whole discussion reminds me of Korihor's accusations of Alma living off the people. And we all know what happened to Korihor.
ttribe Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Would it shake your testimony if you learned that the Church did pay for his second home and provide lavish things to adorn it?Paul ONo...but then, that wasn't the point of my question now was it?
Deborah Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I for one enjoy the insults heaped upon Brother Peterson. Why? Because it brings out his humor and I get to see those others make total fools of themselves. Perhaps they feel the need to gang up on him because they simply cant argue with his logic. ~~~>Anijen reaching for the popcorn.I agree. I love his humor. Sometimes I think it goes over the heads of some of his critics. Pass the popcorn.
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I do.DCP,Since you know a member of the First Presidency will you kindly do me a favor? Ask him to reveal the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3. Tell him Paul Osborne in Dallas Texas wants to know.Tell him when he comes to Dallas, I'll ask him personally and expect an answer. Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Y'know Staccato, if ever you wanted to prove that you simply have no credibility on any subject at all, blurting out that obvious and idiotic falsehood seems to be the most infallible way to do it.Just as a reminder, you will gain a world of credibility with me, Pahoran, if you will just tell me the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3. Can you do that? But if you can't do that, you have no credibility with me when it comes to Facsimile No. 3.Paul O
Jersey Girl Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Daniel,Let me finish this. I've got other fish to fry and not planning to stick around here. If that is the post that you had in mind, I was referring to the Scratchian tone of your comments regarding Paul. They struck me as mean and unnecessary. Likewise, copy/pasting his comments and transferring them here. Again, Scratchian. Are you becoming that which you previously criticized?I don't have the answer to that.Mote/Beam.Regards,JG
ttribe Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 DCP,Since you know a member of the First Presidency will you kindly do me a favor? Ask him to reveal the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3. Tell him Paul Osborne in Dallas Texas wants to know.Tell him when he comes to Dallas, I'll ask him personally and expect an answer. Paul ODerail.
ttribe Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Just as a reminder, you will gain a world of credibility with me, Pahoran, if you will just tell me the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3. Can you do that? But if you can't do that, you have no credibility with me when it comes to Facsimile No. 3.Paul ODerail #2
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 This whole discussion reminds me of Korihor's accusations of Alma living off the people. And we all know what happened to KorihorI'll try not to end up like Korihor did.You do know, however, that all of us have strong opinions! I'm in the deep end and you're in the shallow end.I just spilled a whole shot glass of Jack Daniels on my keyboard! It's your fault!DARN!!Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 No...but then, that wasn't the point of my question now was it?Your point doesn't matter. What would shake your testimony, I wonder? What would GA's have to do to cause you to walk away from the authority of the church? Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I agree. I love his humor. Sometimes I think it goes over the heads of some of his critics. Pass the popcorn.Would you like some chocolate, dear? Paul O
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 What would shake your testimony, I wonder? What would GA's have to do to cause you to walk away from the authority of the church?Mere men are supposed to be sufficient to cause me to walk away from the authority of the Living God?
ttribe Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Your point doesn't matter. What would shake your testimony, I wonder? What would GA's have to do to cause you to walk away from the authority of the church? Paul OMy point does matter...and my personal opinions about what would bother me regarding the authority of the Church are really none of your business...nor are they the topic of this thread.
Paul Osborne Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Derail.To be fair, I will believe the General Authorities are NOT corrupt and forgive any huge salaries if they will but tell me the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3.I will also persuade my friends on the other board that the GA's are not corrupt if they will but do this one thing.Paul O
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.