The depths of disgusting

[Calm]

I am reminded that we ought to figure out a way to fix our own misdeeds before we start cooing over certain dispicable behavior from those that are critics.

It is the only thing we can really change after all (and I mean ourselves, not those in our group).

[mfbukowski]

I can't tell who you all are even talking about. If you mean Ed Decker, nobody takes him seriously. He's one of the only true "Anti-Mormons" I've ever seen.

Oh, just hang around for a bit. Unfortunately, you'll get the hang of it.

[Magyar]

Analogous only in that it is pretty bad behavior. I suppose we can go about quibbling about the extent of poor behavior as we see it from each side and create some sort of scoreboard to record what we have, but in the end, I'd expect more from LDS believers. So the fact that there would be a scoreboard, alone, offends me.

With that said, I don't condone poor behavior no matter its source. That's not my point, but I am reminded that we ought to figure out a way to fix our own misdeeds before we start cooing over certain dispicable behavior from those that are critics.

Point out one, just one LDS member who pretends to be a member of some other church in order to deceptively attack it. There is a world -- a vast, enormous, Jupiter-sized world -- of difference between being an honest, sincere critic of something and adopting tactics of deception to tear something down. Any so-called Mormon who stoops to such tactics wins no respect whatsoever from me.

[MorningStar]

I'll never forget the person who came here years ago claiming she was an ex-Mormon and didn't even know the term "ward". I gave her a quiz to fill in the blanks like, "I looked out the ______ and what did I see? _______ popping on the _______." It was such an easy quiz, but she declined.

[Deborah]

I gave her a quiz to fill in the blanks like, "I looked out the ______ and what did I see? _______ popping on the _______." It was such an easy quiz, but she declined.

LOL!

[MorningStar]

LOL!

Oh yeah, and then her "mom" sent me a private message saying she was really hoping she would come back to church and her "dad" posted on the board, trying to give the impression that she was for real. But come on, anyone raised in the church as she claimed knows Popcorn Popping! You can't escape it. It's weird to me that people pretending to be former Mormons think that will somehow bolster their claims. An Evangelical told me, "Ed Decker said this and he was an Elder in your church!" I said, "That's basically the same as saying he was a man in the church." "Elder" to someone who doesn't know Mormon terminology thinks that means he had some position of authority. Even if he did have a position of authority, that doesn't change the fact that he is a lying liar who tells lies. Another time someone told me about a guy who used to be a Deacon in our church, so he should know. A friend of mind loves the blog Seriously So Blessed. I made a Mormon glossary for her so she could understand everything.

[asbestosman]

But come on, anyone raised in the church as she claimed knows Popcorn Popping! You can't escape it.

True, but possibly not the English version. Oddly, I never heard any version of it on my mission, but I confirmed that it does indeed appear in the Primary songbook for that language.

If someone wants to play the part of the fool, perhaps we could help her out. First we could explain that a true Mormon has horns--she'd better share a picture with them visible. Next, has she chosen a polygamous husband? The occult is especially important, so she'd better demonstrate her knowledge in the dark arts of cookie baking, jello salad, and funeral potatoes not to mention canning, and food storage (the blackest of the dark arts).

[mfbukowski]

When I joined the church, the only thing I understood were the lessons. It took me two years to figure out what anyone was talking about except for what went on in Sunday School

[MorningStar]

True, but possibly not the English version. Oddly, I never heard any version of it on my mission, but I confirmed that it does indeed appear in the Primary songbook for that language.

If someone wants to play the part of the fool, perhaps we could help her out. First we could explain that a true Mormon has horns--she'd better share a picture with them visible. Next, has she chosen a polygamous husband? The occult is especially important, so she'd better demonstrate her knowledge in the dark arts of cookie baking, jello salad, and funeral potatoes not to mention canning, and food storage (the blackest of the dark arts).

I'll remember that next time. "Show me your horns!"

[mfbukowski]

But come on, anyone raised in the church as she claimed knows Popcorn Popping!

I am sure that in areas of the world where apricots are not grown, it must be considered a song about the miraculous appearance of popcorn on a tree which doesn't even grow corn.

But then the line "It wasn't really so, but it seemed to me, popcorn popping on the apricot tree!" turns the miracle into an hallucination. So much for those fragile little testimonies!

[thews]

Had nothing to do with this board but a vendetta that has stemmed from one board and brought over here. I do not read minds and I can assure you I am privi to more info than you are. It's a good thing I am the only one willing not to draw a line and pick sides.

Keep it classy,

Nemesis

But I don't think this is the intent of this thread so get it back on topic.

I'm glad you open to critics voicing concerns and don't pick sides. For the record, I have seen this tactic used from the other side, where a faithful Mormon pretends to be an ex in order to ease into acceptance. I find it disgusting from any angle is it's rooted in dishonesty. Whoever you are and what your stance it, it should be public knowledge.

[Pahoran]

I'm glad you open to critics voicing concerns and don't pick sides. For the record, I have seen this tactic used from the other side, where a faithful Mormon pretends to be an ex in order to ease into acceptance. I find it disgusting from any angle is it's rooted in dishonesty. Whoever you are and what your stance it, it should be public knowledge.

A variation on this theme is when someone claims to be "perplexed" or "confused" about a question to which, they claim, they would really like an "answer" when in reality they regard it as a "gotcha" that undermines (or destroys) the truth claims of the Church.

Only the most shamelessly dishonest critics use this tactic.

Don't you agree?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

A variation on this theme is when someone claims to be "perplexed" or "confused" about a question to which, they claim, they would really like an "answer" when in reality they regard it as a "gotcha" that undermines (or destroys) the truth claims of the Church.

Only the most shamelessly dishonest critics use this tactic.

Don't you agree?

Regards,

Pahoran

Your question is loaded and I do disagree. Whatever you claim is a "gotcha" question (this makes no sense to me) implies it's not a viable question. Questioning a perspective based on a given set of facts is not intellectually dishonest. Pretending to be confused, as one might do in an attempt to gain favor with those who wish to shed light (help) on a problematic issue with a person struggling with their faith and seeking advice is dishonest, unless it's an honest stance. I make no bones about my stance Phaoran, and if I have a question on perspective it can be intellectually honest without the preconceived notion that I'm supposedly hiding something. A forum open to discussion about a given topic is governed by rules and I don't believe I've broken them. If I have, I apologize. Please PM me where I've faltered and I'll construct my argument based on the rules of the board.

[Pahoran]

Your question is loaded and I do disagree. Whatever you claim is a "gotcha" question (this makes no sense to me) implies it's not a viable question.

No. It implies that it's not a question asked in good faith.

As you and I both know it is not.

Before attempting to get traction out of your favourite Kinderhook schtick here, you ran it for months over at the sty. For example, on Feb. 23 you wrote:

Who said the following: "I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth"

from this picture:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... =39&ty=107

Who said those words Pahoran? (insert answer here). Seems like a simple enough question,after all it is Mormon church history. Can you answer the question Simon can't?

And I can find literally dozens of similar examples. That, as you know, was intended as a "Gotcha." I've never seen you run this except as a "Gotcha."

In case anyone doubts it, I provide a little more of the dialogue. The following day I answered your question, thus:

Of course I know the answer: William Clayton wrote the original of that passage in the third person; it was later amended to a first-person account and included in the History of the Church.

To which you replied:

And once again, you failed to answer the question asked. I didn't ask who wrote it, I asked you who said it. are you claiming that William Clayton made up the "Ham" part?

Thus proving, if anyone doubted it, that you were not asking the question to discuss anything at all; you were asking it because you hoped you could back me into a corner thereby. So much for your standing to object to a question being "loaded."

Much to your malicious chagrin, your tactic failed.

Now: give me the slightest reason to suppose that anything at all has changed, thews.

Questioning a perspective based on a given set of facts is not intellectually dishonest. Pretending to be confused, as one might do in an attempt to gain favor with those who wish to shed light (help) on a problematic issue with a person struggling with their faith and seeking advice is dishonest, unless it's an honest stance.

And you did pretend to be confused, and it was not an honest stance.

I make no bones about my stance Phaoran, and if I have a question on perspective it can be intellectually honest without the preconceived notion that I'm supposedly hiding something. A forum open to discussion about a given topic is governed by rules and I don't believe I've broken them. If I have, I apologize. Please PM me where I've faltered and I'll construct my argument based on the rules of the board.

I don't believe you've explicitly broken any board rules, although it is possible to interpret your faux "confusion" about your favourite Kinderhook quote -- coupled with your coyness about what it related to -- as mere trolling.

But that's not for me to decide.

The fact, thews, is that you are as zealous an anti-Mormon as I've ever met on the internet, and you have for months been brandishing that particular Kinderhook quote as a "gotcha" with which you imagine you can stump LDS defenders -- but only if you can control the terms of the discussion.

Well, you can't, and it isn't.

It's a mildly interesting historical footnote. There is no way to determine exactly what Joseph said, or in what context he said it, or how many other people it passed through before William Clayton heard it.

And what is most fatal to your anti-Mormon fantasy is that Joseph never translated the Kinderhook plates.

And if you had as much as a shred of intellectual honesty, you'd admit it.

But of course, you never will.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

No. It implies that it's not a question asked in good faith.

As you and I both know it is not.

Before attempting to get traction out of your favourite Kinderhook schtick here, you ran it for months over at the sty. For example, on Feb. 23 you wrote:

And I can find literally dozens of similar examples. That, as you know, was intended as a "Gotcha." I've never seen you run this except as a "Gotcha."

In case anyone doubts it, I provide a little more of the dialogue. The following day I answered your question, thus:

To which you replied:

Thus proving, if anyone doubted it, that you were not asking the question to discuss anything at all; you were asking it because you hoped you could back me into a corner thereby. So much for your standing to object to a question being "loaded."

Much to your malicious chagrin, your tactic failed.

Now: give me the slightest reason to suppose that anything at all has changed, thews.

And you did pretend to be confused, and it was not an honest stance.

I don't believe you've explicitly broken any board rules, although it is possible to interpret your faux "confusion" about your favourite Kinderhook quote -- coupled with your coyness about what it related to -- as mere trolling.

But that's not for me to decide.

The fact, thews, is that you are as zealous an anti-Mormon as I've ever met on the internet, and you have for months been brandishing that particular Kinderhook quote as a "gotcha" with which you imagine you can stump LDS defenders -- but only if you can control the terms of the discussion.

Well, you can't, and it isn't.

It's a mildly interesting historical footnote. There is no way to determine exactly what Joseph said, or in what context he said it, or how many other people it passed through before William Clayton heard it.

And what is most fatal to your anti-Mormon fantasy is that Joseph never translated the Kinderhook plates.

And if you had as much as a shred of intellectual honesty, you'd admit it.

But of course, you never will.

Regards,

Pahoran

I thought the rules of this board was not to post from other boards? Do the rules not apply to you? Your "answer" didn't answer the question I had, so I asked it here. I did receive some insight, most notably the notion that it was an "off-the-cuff" remark made by Joseph Smith, but it did place ownership of the quote regarding the descendant of Ham as being from Joseph Smith, which is what church history dictates. In conclusion Pahoran, where we disagree here is that I accept documented church history and you do not. The answers provided by a multitude of sources fail to come out and make a stand on who said the words regarding the descendant of Ham, which is why I asked. While you continue to call me names, I won't engage you. What you consider a "gotcha" question claims it's invalid and I contend it is valid, which is why I asked it.

[Pahoran]

I thought the rules of this board was not to post from other boards? Do the rules not apply to you?

The rules prohibit cross-posting and board wars. They do not prohibit showing the genesis and history of a discussion that is being surreptitiously smuggled in.

Your "answer" didn't answer the question I had, so I asked it here.

That's as honest as any assertion you've ever made. You had no question, only a "gotcha," and I directly addressed the issue in view, namely, the origin of the statement you were smugly throwing in our faces.

I did receive some insight, most notably the notion that it was an "off-the-cuff" remark made by Joseph Smith, but it did place ownership of the quote regarding the descendant of Ham as being from Joseph Smith, which is what church history dictates. In conclusion Pahoran, where we disagree here is that I accept documented church history and you do not.

Again, this is as honest as anything you've ever asserted. Unless, of course, you are saying that you accept that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove of trees in the spring of 1820?

No?

Then let me fix your smug misrepresentation for you:

In conclusion Pahoran, where we disagree here is that I exploit documented church history for polemical purposes as and when it suits me, and you do not.

Which makes me think that I know what's going to happen when the other shoe drops: you'll be back at the sty, without your veneer of civility, jeering at your usual targets with taunts like "Even the MDDB apologists admit that Joe made the descendant of Ham statement, so why can't you?"

And of course you will thus be misrepresenting the discussion. But that's understandable; we know you can't help yourself.

The answers provided by a multitude of sources fail to come out and make a stand on who said the words regarding the descendant of Ham, which is why I asked.

Exactly. You were looking for ammunition, not enlightenment. You wanted someone to "come out and make a stand" on a subject for which the evidence is inconclusive, so that you could then use that "stand" to back your opponents into a corner. Indeed, you triumphantly said so yourself, on Feb 26, on this very topic, when you wrote:

We're just getting started Pahoran. You are backed into a corner with contradiction at the root of your answer to the question asked, failing to acknowledge the data presented.

So when I see you here pretending to be "confused" and oh so genuinely wanting "an answer," contrasting your nicey-nice image to the the triumphant bombast you produce when you have no need to pretend, I think I can tell what is going on.

You know you can't win this argument unless you can control the parameters of the discussion. You came here with your faux confusion in order to get something to help you do that, back at the sty.

While you continue to call me names, I won't engage you. What you consider a "gotcha" question claims it's invalid and I contend it is valid, which is why I asked it.

As I said: when I call it a "gotcha" question, I am thus asserting that you did not ask it in good faith. I notice you dodge that issue.

I wonder why?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Skylla]

The point has been made, so let's move on with the discussion. We don't want board wars, but the board guidelines contain this:

Pretending to be someone you aren't, namely, posing as an ex-Mormon when you clearly are not. This only leads to feelings of hostility. We will allow inconsistencies in your story to be pointed out for the purpose of protecting anyone here you are trying to deceive.

Keeping a consistent online persona is helpful to discussion.

Skylla

[mfbukowski]

Gosh, you mean pointing out thews' inconsistency could get him banned?

Oh No! We wouldn't want that now would we?

[bookofmormontruth]

Ah thews tried the same tactics with me on other topics. Wasn't sure which persona to believe.

Makes sense now, thanks Pahoran