mfbukowski Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Brigham thought in three dimensions whereas current Mormon Doctrine settles for two.All the Best!--ConsiglieriDang.I really hate having to agree with you, but I do. At least here.There is more to this than we see, methinks, and poor Brigham takes all the heat. Link to comment
Pahoran Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I am not certain why stating a historically established fact should be considered an accusation against anyone.He said, with wide-eyed innocence.Please note that you previously said:Jos. F. Smith is here in the process of adulterating Brigham Young's teachings.And you caught him in the act.Congratulations.I hope you are planning on majoring in Criminology.So, according to you, Joseph F. Smith was "caught in the act" of something, which apparently has relevance to "Criminology" -- but perish the thought that harmless little you would dream of accusing him of anything!Why don't you tell it to your buddies -- and ideological bedfellows -- on the sty? I'm sure they'll believe you.Unless one has an aversion to historically established facts . . .Not at all. I do have an aversion to those who pronounce their ideologically-driven assumptions, interpretations and accusations as "historically established facts" though.Regards,Pahoran Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Why don't you tell it to your buddies -- and ideological bedfellows -- on the sty? I'm sure they'll believe you.It seems you have perfected the art of making posts devoid of substance, Pahoran.Thirty years ago, I read an anti-Mormon pamphlet that gave the standard LDS interpretation of Revelation 14:6 and then said, "I don't know what that verse means, but it doesn't mean what the Mormons claim!"I thought that a lame response then and my opinion hasn't changed.Why don't you actually tell us what you think about the issue, rather than just sitting in your little corner sniping at those you disagree with?Or are you afraid to let us know what you really think?All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
Pahoran Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Consig,You previously sniped:Unless one has an aversion to historically established facts . . .And now you, of all people, have the effrontery to say:Why don't you actually tell us what you think about the issue, rather than just sitting in your little corner sniping at those you disagree with?Or are you afraid to let us know what you really think?Which is, of course, just another snipe.I'd be happy to let you know what I think.You previously wrote:Brigham thought in three dimensions whereas current Mormon Doctrine settles for two.And the "Adam-God" theorists settle for one.That's what I think.Regards,Pahoran Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 And the "Adam-God" theorists settle for one.That's what I think.Do let me know when you have something substantive to contribute to the discussion, won't you, Pahoran?All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
Pahoran Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Do let me know when you have something substantive to contribute to the discussion, won't you, Pahoran?I already have.Oh, wait."Something substantive" == agree with you.Got it.Regards,Pahoran Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I already have.Oh, wait."Something substantive" == agree with you.Do let me know when you have something substantive to contribute to the discussion, won't you, Pahoran?All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
volgadon Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 He is not our brother.He is far superior to that.Personally, I think that this is a fundamental misunderstandings of the implications of a brother and his role in the scriptures and anciently as well. Jesus is very much our brother, and it has to do with his role as our redeemer. More on this later. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.