Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Get me some overpriced ice cream, too, will ya?Should I tip them so they can sing a really lowsy song? Do you want me to report what that song is? If the answer is yes?
Deborah Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 consig, I think you just like to play Devil's advocate and irritate people.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 consig, I think you just like to play Devil's advocate and irritate people.Noooooooooooooooooooooo!
sjdawg Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I think the fact that the Joseph Smith Papers project is going on with the church's approval shows they are being more forthcoming. But saying that I don't think that means they were necessarily "covering up" anything in the past. "Recognizing mistakes" depends on whether you think there were mistakes.True enough. I think we all agree there have been some mistakes in the past. In hindsight perhaps they could have been dealt with differently. I'm not suggesting a sinister plot.
CA Steve Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 True enough. I think we all agree there have been some mistakes in the past. In hindsight perhaps they could have been dealt with differently. I'm not suggesting a sinister plot.I do not believe, given the complexity of issues that fall under the umbrella of 'Church History', that one description can be used to describe how all events unfolded.
bookofmormontruth Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Pahoran absolutely destroyed Consig. No worries Consig, I will be embarrassed for you.Is it wrong to enjoy someone being exposed for who they really are?
Pahoran Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Since you believe Brigham Young's lecture at the veil was sacred, does that mean you believe the Adam-God Theory?No.So, if you are aware of these Brigham Young quotes (as I figured you were), and yet you engage in endless obfuscation to avoid dealing with their substance, does it not follow that you are part of the cover-up, Pahoran?No.The Church is covering up its past by poo-pooing the idea that Brigham Young ever taught such a thing, and then saying it is false doctrine. (See 1976 Ensign quote from President Kimball above.)Which, as demonstrated, does not "poo-poo the idea that Brigham Young ever taught such a thing."Pahoran is an accomplice because he is fully aware of the fact that Brigham Young did teach such a thing, but tries to hide it from people under a pile of obfuscation a yard deep.Wrong.As semlogo observed earlier, coming up with a crackpot theory (like Adam Jr. and Adam Sr.) to "make sense" of the evidence is its own form of cover-up.And this is really as good as it gets, isn't it Consig?"alleged to have been taught by past presidents . . ."As I previously pointed out, the passage you are misquoting is in no sense a denial. You really ought to avoid drawing attention to your falsehoods once they've been exposed, Consig.I cannot argue constructively with somebody who believes Jews flew airplanes into the Twin Towers on September 11th.How interesting.Those who share your ideology frequently accuse "Mormon apologists" of using "ad hominem" argumentation. Since not even the swine on Shades's Sty could mistake you for an LDS apologist, I thank you for providing proof that this is by no means a Mormon-apologetic technique.Like the Two-Adam Nonsense, it is an alternate theory to explain away an indisputable fact.What "Two-Adam nonsense?" You mean this?1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.It is also a cover-up to avoid the reality of what happened.Hence even an alternate theory can constitute a cover-up.How interesting.Only if they're dead and aren't in a position to argue about it.Brigham Young's statements were not isolated but repeated over and over and ultimately made part of the temple endowment.People who know better and say it was an isolated event are also part of the cover-up.(I don't mean you by this, Mola. But I expect others to whom it applies will figure it out.)No kidding.This strategy [criticising Consig's gossippy argument] is also part of the cover-up.So now it becomes clear.If you're not aware of Brigham's "Adam-God" remarks, among hundreds of thousands of other details of 19th-century Mormonism, then you are "part of the cover-up."If you don't think his remarks were pervasive and important, then you are "part of the cover-up."If you have an alternative theory as to what they might mean, then you are "part of the cover-up."If you don't agree that the modern "Adam-God theory" is true and correct LDS doctrine, then you are "part of the cover-up."If you take issue with Consig's approach or technique, then you are "part of the cover-up."In fact, if you disagree at all with any part of Consiglieri's opinion about this matter, then you are "part of the cover-up."And thus we see what Consiglieri means by a "cover-up."Regards,Pahoran
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 I don't think the question should be does the LDS Church "cover up" their past. I think perhaps a more appropriate question would be "Should the LDS Church be more forthcoming about what they know about their history and more willing to openly recognize their mistakes (past and future)?I can live with that reformulation.
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 Pahoran absolutely destroyed Consig. No worries Consig, I will be embarrassed for you.Is it wrong to enjoy someone being exposed for who they really are? You must be a TBM.
consiglieri Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 And thus we see what Consiglieri means by a "cover-up."I wish I were half as smart as you think you are.All you are able to do is snipe without actually engaging the issues.Is this as good as Pahoran gets?
RoseMadder Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Pahoran absolutely destroyed Consig. No worries Consig, I will be embarrassed for you.Is it wrong to enjoy someone being exposed for who they really are? Your few one-or-two-line posts being as trite and wholly void of substance as they are, I'm surprised you've room to be embarrassed for anyone other than yourself.
sjdawg Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Your few one-or-two-line posts being as trite and wholly void of substance as they are, I'm surprised you've room to be embarrassed for anyone other than yourself.ouch
Pahoran Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Consig,Without engaging the issues, you sniped:I wish I were half as smart as you think you are.All you are able to do is snipe without actually engaging the issues.Is this as good as Pahoran gets?Let's see.I've shown that you can only argue a "cover-up" if you define "cover-up" to mean "anything less than complete agreement with Consiglieri."Since "cover-up" is the main issue of this thread -- based upon the thread title -- then I'd say I have actually engaged the issues.Unless, of course, you're telling us that "cover-up" was merely the hook by which you tried to introduce your A-G argument, and your A-G argument is the real issue you wanted to canvass in this thread.Is that what you are telling us?Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Your few one-or-two-line posts being as trite and wholly void of substance as they are, I'm surprised you've room to be embarrassed for anyone other than yourself.Perhaps BOML should follow your example in formulating a substantive contribution to the thread?Regards,Pahoran
Jeff K. Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 I cannot argue constructively with somebody who believes Jews flew airplanes into the Twin Towers on September 11th.Like the Two-Adam Nonsense, it is an alternate theory to explain away an indisputable fact.It is also a cover-up to avoid the reality of what happened.Hence even an alternate theory can constitute a cover-up.All the Best!--ConsiglieriThe irony consig is that you are the conspiracy theorist here. And frankly I resent your implication that I practice what you seem to enjoy doing. Creating conspiracies where non exist. Unlike you, I actually look up and research church history. You seem destined to constantly run from one rumor mill to another. Please keep to the facts from now on. You only hurt your own reputation when you go anti and use specious arguments that do not reflect either my opinions or the reality of the situation.So far, you haven't done anything but "allege". And even there when challenged you seem to fail miserably.
Jeff K. Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 10 March 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:Um.... THe church has never offically tried to make sense of it. Other independant people have tried to make sense. The only thing they (The church) have maintained is that it is not offical doctrine. BTW you can still buy the 26 volume set that contains BY sermons on the matter.Which speaks volumes to the lack of a "cover up" as Consig so desperately want to fan the flames for. In a way it reminds me of the neighborhood gossip on a slow day. This strategy is also part of the cover-up.Thanks for the illustration, Jeff.Tin foil hat people everywhere take not.
Jeff K. Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 I wish I were half as smart as you think you are.All you are able to do is snipe without actually engaging the issues.Is this as good as Pahoran gets?Consig snipes and accuses others of doing so? Nope, nothing embarrassing to see here.
Calm Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 The reason why I'm not fussed about "cover up" is because I've found that within the LDS community (and my definition of church, ekklesia, assembly) is directed more towards the assembly of people as such, rather than towards a leader or two, much less the notions of some low level, well-meaning bureaucrat. ....Really, Kevin, try and stop making so much sense.
rockslider Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 I know that some of the most powerful spiritual experiences I ever had dealt with this topic. Many of my heros and mentors of many years in the temple believed in this doctrine, which at the time was deemed extremely sacred and not to be shared. This sacredness was at the level of a second anointing, and was not spoken of because of the likes of BRM's violent opposition to it.If I ever had any testimony concept sealed by the power of the Holy Ghost upon me, it was that Adam is the only God to which we have to do.
sjdawg Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 I know that some of the most powerful spiritual experiences I ever had dealt with this topic. Many of my heros and mentors of many years in the temple believed in this doctrine, which at the time was deemed extremely sacred and not to be shared. This sacredness was at the level of a second anointing, and was not spoken of because of the likes of BRM's violent opposition to it.If I ever had any testimony concept sealed by the power of the Holy Ghost upon me, it was that Adam is the only God to which we have to do. ???
rockslider Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 ???What are you questioning? I'll gladly try and respond
bookofmormontruth Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 You must be a TBM.Is that code to rally your pose together since your OP exposed who you really are? Copying and pasting from anti-Mormon mills while claiming that they are your "original" thoughts. What a talent!
sjdawg Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 What are you questioning? I'll gladly try and respondI have no clue what this sentance meansIf I ever had any testimony concept sealed by the power of the Holy Ghost upon me, it was that Adam is the only God to which we have to do.
rockslider Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Is that code to rally your pose together since your OP exposed who you really are? Copying and pasting from anti-Mormon mills while claiming that they are your "original" thoughts. What a talent! Consig, I posted for you. If, after your studies of this, you found some enlightenment, don't be ashamed of it, but don't bother posting about it, you will only be ridiculed.I can assure you that some of the greatest minds and men I knew, who had dedicated their lives to the Temple, understood this as doctrine and as exactly what the endowment was presenting
bookofmormontruth Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Your few one-or-two-line posts being as trite and wholly void of substance as they are, I'm surprised you've room to be embarrassed for anyone other than yourself.Receive Consig"s smoke signal? You should know better. "These myths hum with truth, Rosie. That's their power. That's why they survive".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.