sethpayne Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Kindly confine yourself to commenting on the content of the posts in this thread, or feel free to remove yourself therefrom.Regards,PahoranI think I'll respond to your posts as I like, thank you. If the mods want to remove me, they will. You are dripping with irony.
Pahoran Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Which is worse, a murderer of mortal life or a murderer of eternal life?Clearly the latter. However, I worry about that particular argument, because it can be (and has been) used by those of Shaf's ilk, including his more violent predecessors, as a rationale to justify actual violence. After all, if losing eternal life is worse than losing mortal life, and those Mormons are stealing the eternal life of our neighbours, then what's to stop anyone slipping on a hood and slinging a noose over a nearby branch?It's apropos to remember that Latter-day Saints have in fact been subject to violent pogroms in the United States, at least one of which had "extermination" as its stated objective. Mr Shafavaloff is the heir and successor of those who carried them out, and a sharer in their ideology, or at very minimum, in its theological underpinnings.Regards,PahoranYou will get one reprieve for removing the tag line. If you insult or put Godwin's Law in play in another post you will be thread banned. Edited February 1, 2012 by Pahoran
jwhitlock Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 This statement is absolutely out of line. To compare evangelical anti-Mormons to a know terror organization that kills innocent women and children, is incredibly offensive. You are essentially claiming that anti-Mormon evangelicals are in favor of genocide -- against Mormons.When someone launches a missle from the SBC into Temple Square then, and only then, should we possibly mention Yassar Arafat's genocidal views of Israel and anti-Mormonism in the same sentence.Please, Seth. Be accurate in your representations. Pahoran was talking specifically about AS, not about evangelicals or even anti-Mormon evangelicals in general.However, you and I both know the area that I live in. While I have many good EV friends here, there are also some of a decidedly anti-Mormon bent who would cheerfully strip Mormons of every right they possibly could, were they given the chance. 1
Pahoran Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 Please, Seth. Be accurate in your representations. Pahoran was talking specifically about AS, not about evangelicals or even anti-Mormon evangelicals in general.However, you and I both know the area that I live in. While I have many good EV friends here, there are also some of a decidedly anti-Mormon bent who would cheerfully strip Mormons of every right they possibly could, were they given the chance.When I read comments in other fora, I see quite a number of them suggesting that anyone deluded enough to believe anything as crazy as Mormonism should be prevented from holding office, or even voting. Such people do in fact exist.But we'd best tread carefully when pursuing this line of discussion. Evidently it is not popular in some quarters.Regards,Pahoran
Xander Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Is there a reason Pahoran doesn't provide a link to the "context" of this remark? I'm unable to find it anywhere on the web aside from his signature. I was asked to remove my signature a couple months ago and I kindly removed it. What Pahoran doesn't tell you is that there is no way we can debate, on this forum, whether my comment was within its proper context. And he knows this. It would be shut down within minutes of me posting anything unflattering of his mentor.Pahoran is all about poisoning the well, and nothing more. This is an old school apologetic tactic. Attack the messenger from every angle so you don't have to deal with the arguments. That is particularly callous for someone hiding behind a pseudonym and who is constantly whining to moderators on multiple forums, whenever someone connects his IRL identity with the notorious persona known as Pahoran. Edited February 1, 2012 by Xander
Pahoran Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 Is there a reason Pahoran doesn't provide a link to the "context" of this remark? I'm unable to find it anywhere on the web aside from his signature.None at all except that when I paste it into my browser's address window, it takes me to the first page of comments. Dan's post is right below Shafavaloff's, near the bottom of page 8 of the comments, and yours near the top of the next page.http://lightbox.time.../#ixzz1l4Ybny9KI think any reader can see that I've summed up the discussion accurately enough.I was asked to remove my signature a couple months ago and I kindly removed it. What Pahoran doesn't tell you is that there is no way we can debate, on this forum, whether my comment was within its proper context. And he knows this. It would be shut down within minutes of me posting anything unflattering of his mentor.As far as I've been able to tell, if anyone's getting special protection these days, it isn't Dan.And within its "proper context" or not, your comment was clearly false.Pahoran is all about poisoning the well, and nothing more. This is an old school apologetic tactic. Attack the messenger from every angle so you don't have to deal with the arguments.This is a remarkably ironic accusation, given that your spiteful bit of character assassination against Dan served no purpose at all but to poison the well against him.Which is precisely what you intended when you posted it, wasn't it?Regards,Pahoran
Recommended Posts