Why Is Revelation So Offensive To The World?

[zerinus]

zerinus,

You wrote:

I haven't "told" them to do anything. I asked them to address BOMT's refusal to answer the CFR, in keeping with forum rules. Is there anything wrong with that?

You are doing more than that. You are telling them what they should be doing.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You are doing more than that. You are telling them what they should be doing.

You are attempting to divert attention from the issue here. Unless you or someone else can show me where BOMT provided a reference that documents that his quotation was accurate, I have no choice but to conclude that he has not answered the CFR. You cannot honestly tell me that he did answer it, can you? Nor can you honestly tell me that the rule about answering a CFR does not apply in this case (what, because I am a despicable "anti-Mormon"?). The issue here is not whether I am asking or telling them; the issue is whether they should do as I asked. I have made no accusations against them and will continue to wait a while for them to handle the matter properly, as I still hope they will. meanwhile, you and others here are making baseless accusations against me and trying rather desperately to divert attention from the real infraction.

[Rob Bowman]

Oops, I forgot to put you on "ignore." My mistake.

If I was a person of integrity... 'eh... cute... IRRational, IRRelevant, and IRReverent as always.

I forgot that it was only your opinion if a CFR was answered that mattered...

[ELF1024]

Oops, I forgot to put you on "ignore." My mistake.

Indeed...

Oddly I just went over to the board guideline link, and I don't see anything about a CFR rule. I looked for CFR, Cite, and References, and see nothing.

However, I will say that BOMT did give you a reference, to a video, you cited for reference, and he sent you to a video. I personally see nothing wrong or incomplete with that.

Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given

oops. Found it...

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

I see no reason why a video can't be an appropriate reference

[LeSellers]

Outside of politics and in reference to other religions, revelation as practiced by the LDS faith is offensive because it goes against the basic tenets of mainstream Christianity.

Which was my point.

Lehi

[cinepro]

The word for word quote came from Robert J. Woodford: Volume Co-Editor, Joseph Smith Papers. Television Documentary Series. Season 1. Episode 0. My link . Robert J. Woodford is a real expert on Joseph Smith, has access to Church archives and you can contact him in reference to what he specifically stated. My link

Is this the episode you are talking about?

http://www.byutv.org/watch/1542-101

If so, where is the quote? If not, which one is it?

[bookofmormontruth]

I was not and am not embarrassed one bit. Nor do I see anything petty about what I have said.

To admit in public, of course not, so I will be embarrassed for you.

[That's baloney. I don't think I have alleged that someone failed to answer my CFR more than a couple of times, if that. This is the first and only time I have reported such a failure to the moderators. In this case your failure to answer the CFR is obvious, egregious, and undeniable, which is why I reported it.

I am sooooooo honored that I am your "first"!

I sincerely hope the moderators do their duty and deal with your refusal to answer the CFR. It would be a shame for them to give the appearance of partiality in the administration of the forum's rules. I assume for the moment that they have either been too busy to respond yet or are contemplating how to handle the matter.

They do their duties and I am in no conspiracy with them that you are pathetically alleging.

Again, you keep spinning the facts. The fact is, I didn't "refuse", I answered. You just can't deal that is comes from an LDS source. You might want to try those LDS sources on your own site. You know primary sources?

[bookofmormontruth]

Is this the episode you are talking about?

http://www.byutv.org/watch/1542-101

If so, where is the quote? If not, which one is it?

Good find, but it was in episode 0 (Documentary Pilot) The Joseph Smith Papers: A Television Foreword. Chapter 6. About 37 minutes in.

[bookofmormontruth]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

Perhaps you are confused. My unanswered CFR has nothing to do with cinepro, who was answering a different CFR having to do with what evidence there is outside JS-H that Joseph was persecuted in the 1820s for his First Vision story. My unanswered CFR has to do with a sentence that BOMT tacked onto a statement made by Robert Tayler in the Reed Smoot hearings. You can search this thread for yourself and see that BOMT has made no effort to provide documentation for that sentence. Instead he claimed it was made by a guy in a video he saw, and he provided nothing except a link to a webpage that listed the guy's name but gave no information about the supposed video. I also pointed out that according to BOMT the video was about the Joseph Smith Papers, which proves it has no relevance to the issue at hand, since Joseph Smith died sixty years before the Reed Smoot hearing!

You wrote:

Your quotation above was from BOMT. Here is another example of his disingenuousness. In response to my private message to him informing him of the nature of A Course in Miracles, BOMT asked me privately for a reference documenting the above facts. I wrote him back privately and provided the documentation. So his asking for it here is simply a dishonest diversion from his own blatant refusal to answer my CFR.

Here are the links I provided to BOMT in that private message five days ago:

http://www.probe.org...In_Miracles.htm

http://www.apologeti...ex.org/c03.html

If you were a person of integrity, you would contact the moderators and urge them to call BOMT on his refusal to answer the CFR, instead of falsely accusing me of casting stones.

Ah Rob, you almost have me all figured out, but I am one step ahead of you, maybe even five.

I asked for a CFR just to show how pathetic the sources that you gave to me. I wanted to bring them public. Sorry to embarrass you again.

Apologeticsindex (has LDS listed as a "cult") and probesministry (has LDS listed as a "cult") are suppose to be a legitimate sources on a "Mormon dialogue & discussion board"? And yet you have a problem with my LDS source?

This is what the moderators will see, your hypocrisy.

[bookofmormontruth]

Indeed...

Oddly I just went over to the board guideline link, and I don't see anything about a CFR rule. I looked for CFR, Cite, and References, and see nothing.

However, I will say that BOMT did give you a reference, to a video, you cited for reference, and he sent you to a video. I personally see nothing wrong or incomplete with that.

oops. Found it...

I see no reason why a video can't be an appropriate reference

So Rob Bowman is breaking a board rule by badgering me even when I gave him a source to his CFR that he doesn't like?

No worries, Rob - I won't report you because that would just be darn right petty and desperate.

[bookofmormontruth]

Indeed...

Oddly I just went over to the board guideline link, and I don't see anything about a CFR rule. I looked for CFR, Cite, and References, and see nothing.

However, I will say that BOMT did give you a reference, to a video, you cited for reference, and he sent you to a video. I personally see nothing wrong or incomplete with that.

oops. Found it...

I see no reason why a video can't be an appropriate reference

And how come you get the response "You are on ignore bud" by Rob Bowman?

Yet, I get private messages from him? Luck dog you!

[zerinus]

You are attempting to divert attention from the issue here. Unless you or someone else can show me where BOMT provided a reference that documents that his quotation was accurate, I have no choice but to conclude that he has not answered the CFR. You cannot honestly tell me that he did answer it, can you? Nor can you honestly tell me that the rule about answering a CFR does not apply in this case (what, because I am a despicable "anti-Mormon"?). The issue here is not whether I am asking or telling them; the issue is whether they should do as I asked. I have made no accusations against them and will continue to wait a while for them to handle the matter properly, as I still hope they will. meanwhile, you and others here are making baseless accusations against me and trying rather desperately to divert attention from the real infraction.

It is an unwritten rule (and on some boards it is a written rule) that posters do not discuss their private interactions with the moderators on the open forum. By declaring your interactions openly you have broken an unwritten rule; and what you are actually trying to do is to is to force the hand of the moderators do declare a decision. That is always a risky thing to do, because moderators don't usually appreciate it, and it could be counter-productive and work against you.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

It is an unwritten rule (and on some boards it is a written rule) that posters do not discuss their private interactions with the moderators on the open forum. By declaring your interactions openly you have broken an unwritten rule; and what you are actually trying to do is to is to force the hand of the moderators do declare a decision. That is always a risky thing to do, because moderators don't usually appreciate it, and it could be counter-productive and work against you.

I thought it would be a polite courtesy to let BOMT know that I had reported him for failing to provide a reference in response to my CFR. I was certainly not going to communicate that action to him privately, because he made it clear that he resented any private message from me--even a polite one. The rest of the discussion since then has been driven by ridiculous denials and diversions from him and others. I expect the moderators will not be so confused as to penalize me for breaking a supposed unwritten rule while ignoring the written rule that BOMT has egregiously broken. I would agree with you that moderators would not like to have someone try to force their hand, and I hope they don't misunderstand my courtesy to BOMT as driven by such an intention.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

They do their duties and I am in no conspiracy with them that you are pathetically alleging.

I alleged no conspiracy between you and the moderators. You're making that up.

You wrote:

Again, you keep spinning the facts. The fact is, I didn't "refuse", I answered. You just can't deal that is comes from an LDS source. You might want to try those LDS sources on your own site. You know primary sources?

This is absolutely ridiculous. I didn't have a problem with you citing an LDS source. My objection was that you did not provide a clear reference to the alleged source.

[ELF1024]

BOMT,

You wrote:

I alleged no conspiracy between you and the moderators. You're making that up.

You wrote:

This is absolutely ridiculous. I didn't have a problem with you citing an LDS source. My objection was that you did not provide a clear reference to the alleged source.

Oh look... the goal line has been moved again... it went from not answering the CFR now to just not providing a "clear reference" to the source... *snort*

Response #58

It was in episode 0 (Documentary Pilot) The Joseph Smith Papers: A Television Foreword. Chapter 6. About 37 minutes in.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

You wrote:

I alleged no conspiracy between you and the moderators. You're making that up.

You wrote:

This is absolutely ridiculous. I didn't have a problem with you citing an LDS source. My objection was that you did not provide a clear reference to the alleged source.

"clear"?

Order the DVDs and watch it on high definition then.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Good find, but it was in episode 0 (Documentary Pilot) The Joseph Smith Papers: A Television Foreword. Chapter 6. About 37 minutes in.

Is this part of the same series called "Joseph Smith Papers" that is on byutv.org? It has something like 96 parts online and none of them have the title you give. I am trying to find this video you are citing, but so far you have not offered any help in finding it.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Order the DVDs and watch it on high definition then.

This is just more silliness. If Tayler said what you quoted, then it should be available in writing somewhere. I assume Robert Woodford didn't make up the quotation or have it passed by word of mouth down to him over a century after the fact. The website to which you linked is the website of the JSP, which doesn't even list any DVDs on its site. I have made every effort to find this phantom quotation of yours and you are still not providing an accessible reference to support it.

[ELF1024]

Your quotation above was from BOMT. Here is another example of his disingenuousness. In response to my private message to him informing him of the nature of A Course in Miracles, BOMT asked me privately for a reference documenting the above facts. I wrote him back privately and provided the documentation. So his asking for it here is simply a dishonest diversion from his own blatant refusal to answer my CFR.

Please share with the rest of the class, I'd like to see the answer you provided.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Is this part of the same series called "Joseph Smith Papers" that is on byutv.org? It has something like 96 parts online and none of them have the title you give. I am trying to find this video you are citing, but so far you have not offered any help in finding it.

Yes. I have the DVDs and it provides "episode 0" which isn't on byutv.org. I offered a direct link to purchase the DVDs - that was very kind on my part Rob, so stop your whining.

And go ahead and conclude that I am a liar which coming from you means squat.

[bookofmormontruth]

BOMT,

You wrote:

This is just more silliness. If Tayler said what you quoted, then it should be available in writing somewhere. I assume Robert Woodford didn't make up the quotation or have it passed by word of mouth down to him over a century after the fact. The website to which you linked is the website of the JSP, which doesn't even list any DVDs on its site. I have made every effort to find this phantom quotation of yours and you are still not providing an accessible reference to support it.

BINGO! Rob finally gets it. The writing is available and Robert J. Woodford has access to it for I saw him directly read it.

Google isn't the end all of research. In this case it has failed you, but thank you for concluding us both liars.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Yes. I have the DVDs and it provides "episode 0" which isn't on byutv.org. I offered a direct link to purchase the DVDs - that was very kind on my part Rob, so stop your whining.

I am not going to spend $50 on a DVD set about the writings of a man who died sixty years before the event in question to find one sentence that you claim some guy on the DVD read.

You wrote:

And go ahead and conclude that I am a liar which coming from you means squat.

No, I think you are mistaken. I have provided an authoritative and relevant published reference showing that Tayler did not say what you think you heard Woodford quote him as saying at the Reed Smoot hearings.

In another post, you wrote:

The writing is available and Robert J. Woodford has access to it for I saw him directly read it.

What was he reading? If you cannot answer this question, then you really don't have any documentation for the statement.

[bookofmormontruth]

We don't need another moderator Rob, they all are doing an excellent job.

And again, apologeticsindex.com (has the LDS faith listed as a "cult") and probesministry.com (has the LDS faith listed as a "cult") are not legitimate sources on a "Mormon dialogue & discussion board" (or anywhere else for that matter), but you don't hear me whining or reporting your posts.

I gave the reference where I directly heard it from which stems from the Joseph Smith Papers documentary series (referenced earlier) that has already been recognized for its high standards in academic scholarship (the highest possible actually so you might want to consider purchasing the DVDs, books etc.. to learn the real truth about our own history if you have any integrity left).

Which high standards will also make the agenda driven "organizations" like apologeticsindex, probesministry and your very own IRR completely irrelevant, you know - kinda like how they are today.

My advice is to take your misguided microscope and start focusing on your own seriously flawed, dishonest and offensive website . It has major spring cleaning up to do to be taken seriously or be labeled as "honest criticism" towards the Lord's Church so no wonder you took the hyperlink off your signature.

Since you usually disappear, dismiss questions and completely avoid any type of scrutiny, how about we start another thread (under the "focused threads" section) and go line by line through your website? I am sure you will love the endless CFRs (since you are the "champion" of CFRs) and the focused microscope being directed right towards your very own work. Sound good Rob?

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

We don't need another moderator Rob, they all are doing an excellent job.

In general, I agree with you about the job the moderators are doing.

You wrote:

And again, apologeticsindex.com (has the LDS faith listed as a "cult") and probesministry.com (has the LDS faith listed as a "cult") are not legitimate sources on a "Mormon dialogue & discussion board" (or anywhere else for that matter), but you don't hear me whining or reporting your posts.

You're acting like a little kid at this point. I told you privately that A Course in Miracles was New Age. I was doing you a favor. You asked me privately back where you could see documentation on that point. I provided two references, both of which provide written quotations from the primary source (the book itself). I posted those links here only after you disingenuously posted a CFR here for my documentation even though you already had it.

It is childish and hypocritical to complain that the links I provided were to evangelical sites that regard Mormonism as a theological cult. That fact doesn't negate the fact that the sites accurately state and properly document that A Course in Miracles is New Age. I don't complain when Mormons cite JS-H, even though it asserts that Presbyterianism is not true, that all of the churches with which I am in fellowship are wrong, and that my creeds are an abomination to God.

The official website of ACIM says:

A Course in Miracles was "scribed" by Dr. Schucman between 1965 and 1972 through a process of inner dictation. She experienced the process as one of a distinct and clear dictation from an inner voice, which earlier had identified itself to her as Jesus.

Here is what ACIM says about Jesus:

"The name of , Jesus, is the name of one who was a man but saw the face of Christ in all his brothers and remembered God. So he became identified with Christ, a man no longer, but at one with God. The man was an illusion, for he seemed to be a separate being, walking by himself, within a body that appeared to hold his self from Self, as all illusions do. "

The same part of the Course teaches that sin and death are also mere dreams or illusions:

"And therefore all your sins have been forgiven because they carried no effects at all. And so they were but dreams.... There is no death because the Son of God is like his Father. Nothing you can do can change Eternal Love. Forget your dreams of sin and guilt, and come with me instead to share the resurrection of God's Son."

The Course does not mean the same thing as you or I would mean by "God's Son," let alone by "resurrection"; these terms, along with really every other theological term of significance, gets redefined in the Course. It says, "Death is the central dream from which all illusions stem." The resurrection is "a change of mind about the meaning of the world" in which one comes to recognize that death, evil, and pain are illusions.

You wrote:

I gave the reference where I directly heard it from which stems from the Joseph Smith Papers documentary series (referenced earlier) that has already been recognized for its high standards in academic scholarship (the highest possible actually so you might want to consider purchasing the DVDs, books etc.. to learn the real truth about our own history if you have any integrity left).

I have said nothing against the JSP project. I simply pointed out that a video series on the JSP is a very unlikely place to find a quotation from the Reed Smoot hearings that cannot be found anywhere else. I have repeatedly asked for an actual documentary source of the sentence that you added to Tayler's remarks in those hearings. Apparently, you don't have one. I'm giving up on getting a valid reference for the statement.

You wrote:

My advice is to take your misguided microscope and start focusing on your own seriously flawed, dishonest and offensive website . It has major spring cleaning up to do to be taken seriously or be labeled as "honest criticism" towards the Lord's Church so no wonder you took the hyperlink off your signature.

You really are something. I didn't take the link to IRR's website off my signature. It was removed without my knowledge or consent by the administrators because if one searches the website one will find one page, out of the dozens of pages of the site, that contains the text of the temple endowment ceremony.

You wrote:

Since you usually disappear, dismiss questions and completely avoid any type of scrutiny,...

Those are simply flat-out lies. That is, they are untrue, and you know they are untrue. You are bearing false witness against me.

...how about we start another thread (under the "focused threads" section) and go line by line through your website? I am sure you will love the endless CFRs (since you are the "champion" of CFRs) and the focused microscope being directed right towards your very own work. Sound good Rob?

I have often had Mormons like you (I am not generalizing about all Mormons) spout off generalizations about alleged errors or lies on the website who can't back up that criticism with specific examples. But I have always told such people that I welcome constructive criticism of the website. I am open to having a discussion anywhere about anything on IRR's website.

However, I will not participate in such a discussion with you. I will only participate in a discussion in the "focused" section of the forum with someone who (1) uses his or her real name and so demonstrates some accountability for what he or she says, (2) has demonstrated some willingness to engage in respectful, constructive dialogue, and (3) shows an ability to back up his or her statements with real documentation. You fail on all three counts.

[ELF1024]

However, I will not participate in such a discussion with you. I will only participate in a discussion in the "focused" section of the forum with someone who (a) uses his or her real name and so demonstrates some accountability for what he or she says, (b) has demonstrated some willingness to engage in respectful, constructive dialogue, and © shows an ability to back up his or her statements with real documentation. You fail on all three counts.

Irony alert, Rob Bowman, Temple Content Desecrator, is complaining about lack of respect.

Now that the derail is over, perhaps we can get back to the OP?