Teancum Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, jwhitlock said: This was a non-substance thread to begin with. He's been generating loads of negative threads with an obvious anti-Mormon agenda in mind. My offering on this thread was to identify his agenda, which become rather clear in his post I responded to. Whether you approve of it or not is irrelevant. Obviously whether I approve or not is irrelevant . And I am not seeking your approval or anyone else's. Edited December 31, 2015 by Teancum
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 33 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You have obviously never read Boyd K. Packer's, The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect. http://mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/bkp_mantteli.shtml It is the smoking gun. You have a pretty low bar - almost non-existent, actually - for your definition of "smoking gun". Your rationale that this article somehow counters the fact that the church is very open with its history - and I gave examples in my post - is tenuous enough that it escapes me. Perhaps you can cherry-pick some quotes out of the article that somehow tell us that the church history museum doesn't really exist and the scholarly stuff coming out of the archives isn't really happening. Go ahead; enlighten me, O Seeker of Truth.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Just now, Teancum said: It is also obvious that you are offering nothing of substance. That's because of your presupposition that anyone defending the church has no substance. Anything can be "obvious" if your foundational assumptions are flawed.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 37 minutes ago, consiglieri said: But your approval is all that matters. If you say so.
Jeanne Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 5 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Line upon line, precept on precept. Sometimes Church leaders try to protect us from ourselves. It may be a questionable practice, but considering how many Saints might apostatize or become fundamentalists if the full quote from your OPis was included in the manual and how many discussions of Adam-God would then be had in Sunday School, I can understand their reasoning. As they said in Men In Black - "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Joseph complained how hard it was to teach people any doctrine that challenged their traditions. Our leaders think it's more important we don't apostatize from priesthood ordinances than that we endlessly discuss every controversial doctrine. Are they wrong? My family could have been spared some great heartache had the church not chosen to protect us...the truth would have been a clean start on so many problems! Protection? And now they call this new policy protection? Quit hurting the people I love! Edited December 31, 2015 by Jeanne
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: No doubt there's plenty of face-palming going on at the widows of the great and spacious building. This was one of the more interesting typos ("widows" instead of "windows") I've seen in that it holds some truth from another perspective. The church is the bride of Christ. Those who leave and enter the great and spacious building do indeed become "widows" in a very real sense of the word. I can picture the "face-palming of the widows" at the last day. Makes for interesting imagery.
Teancum Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 4 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: That's because of your presupposition that anyone defending the church has no substance. Anything can be "obvious" if your foundational assumptions are flawed. Actually your statement above is flat out false.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 4 minutes ago, Teancum said: Actually your statement above is flat out false. What? You don't think flawed foundational assumptions lead to misplaced obviousness?
Teancum Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 21 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: What? You don't think flawed foundational assumptions lead to misplaced obviousness? No. That I have a presupposition that anyone who defends the church has no substance.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 4 minutes ago, Teancum said: No. That I have a presupposition that anyone who defends the church has no substance. So my post wasn't "flat out false" as you claimed.
Bob Crockett Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 hours ago, Senator said: There's a heck of a lot of hostility towards consig. Wish it wasn't so Well, that is wrong and regrettable. The problem, I see, rests in large part with Mr. Consig. Some critics of the Church adopt the practice of employing disingenuous posts and sarcasm, which probably stokes a lot of antagonism. For example, the response: "My agenda is to seek the truth. What is yours?" This is a prototypical sarcastic, disingenuous comment designed to provoke. Everybody's "agenda" is to seek the truth, basically. But consig is here obviously to sow seeds of discontent and doubt. He is not here to answer questions but to pose questions for which he thinks he knows the answer. (It would be of much greater help if he were familiar with his Bible, because that is the yardstick against how to measure modern prophets and apostles rather than some sort of politically correct assessment of proper behavior.) He is here to mock the Jew for eating a cheeseburger, and not here to ask whether kosher laws are supported by the Bible. I think it is far too easy to be disingenuous. One does not have to do the research, or read one's bible. The Brent Metcalfs, the Vogels, the Tanners, don't really stoop to such misbehavior, usually. 1
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Jumping into the freezing ocean to get away from a ship with a small leak seems pretty foolish when we know the leak will be repaired and the ship will make harbor. It would even be foolish if the ship was taking on major water if you still knew it would make harbor. How long after the ship has hit the iceberg do you jump? The surprising thing is that the captain is telling you to stay in the boat. But when you actually hit the water, you find it is not freezing at all. It is actually quite comfortable. And most wonderful of all is finding you can swim on your own.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Guess which one is more prepared to handle learning something challenging about their religion. Guess which one the Church in the past was trying to protect with their behavior we are discussing. And guess which ones are jumping ship when they find out the Church has been hiding the truth?
Teancum Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 15 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: So my post wasn't "flat out false" as you claimed. Yes it was. Don't be so obtuse. You made a specific accusation about me that is false. Your second sentence was simply to reinforce your accusation.
Senator Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 59 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: Nope. Suggesting that you're not drawing hostility is disingenuous. I did not suggest that and you know it. Talk about disingenuousness!!
Bobbieaware Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 43 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: This was one of the more interesting typos ("widows" instead of "windows") I've seen in that it holds some truth from another perspective. The church is the bride of Christ. Those who leave and enter the great and spacious building do indeed become "widows" in a very real sense of the word. I can picture the "face-palming of the widows" at the last day. Makes for interesting imagery. Thanks. Now I understand Consiglieri's seemingly nonsensical response. I'm slightly dyslexic and so I missed the misspelling altogether. Your insight (based on my error) is eerily sad. 1
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, jwhitlock said: Nope. Suggesting that you're not drawing hostility is disingenuous. This is what is called shifting the wording when you know you are caught off first base, my friend. To recap: Senator called you out on your hostility toward me. You said it is to be expected when one behaves the way I act. Senator asked whether you have any role to play in choosing to act in a hostile manner. You called him "disingenuous." Now you are switching the words and saying you called Senator "disingenuous" for suggesting I am not drawing hostility. Nice try.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 59 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: You have a pretty low bar - almost non-existent, actually - for your definition of "smoking gun". Your rationale that this article somehow counters the fact that the church is very open with its history - and I gave examples in my post - is tenuous enough that it escapes me. Perhaps you can cherry-pick some quotes out of the article that somehow tell us that the church history museum doesn't really exist and the scholarly stuff coming out of the archives isn't really happening. Go ahead; enlighten me, O Seeker of Truth. I have given you the link. You must read it yourself. Elder Packer enjoins the religious educators of the Church to teach only the faith promoting side of Church history, to not teach those negative things that he says he knows exist, but that do not promote faith. Elder Packer then suggests that if the Church educators do not do as he directs, not only their eternal salvation may be on the line, but also their temporal employment. It's all right there. In black and white.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 minutes ago, Senator said: I did not suggest that and you know it. Talk about disingenuousness!! I know nothing of the sort. Bob Crockett's post summed it up rather well and is consistent with the point I was originally making. Your response was disingenuous in that it was an attempt to deflect responsibility for generating the hostility away from consiglieri. So there you go.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yes it was. Don't be so obtuse. You made a specific accusation about me that is false. Your second sentence was simply to reinforce your accusation. Well, it was either "flat out false" in all respects (that is what "flat out" means), or it was only partially false. Hard to be accurate if you're an "all or nothing" type of person, isn't it. Especially if you're accusing someone of adding nothing to the discussion.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 26 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Well, that is wrong and regrettable. The problem, I see, rests in large part with Mr. Consig. The "wrong and regrettable" hostility toward me is my fault. Got it.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Thanks. Now I understand Consiglieri's seemingly nonsensical response. I'm slightly dyslexic and so I missed the misspelling altogether. Your insight (based on my error) is eerily sad. Many of my responses are nonsensical. But only seemingly . . .
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is what is called shifting the wording when you know you are caught off first base, my friend. To recap: Senator called you out on your hostility toward me. You said it is to be expected when one behaves the way I act. Senator asked whether you have any role to play in choosing to act in a hostile manner. You called him "disingenuous." Now you are switching the words and saying you called Senator "disingenuous" for suggesting I am not drawing hostility. Nice try. Whoops - your initial bolded statement is false. He didn't reference me at all. And the house of cards collapses. Kind of an example of the threads you're generating here.
theplains Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 14 minutes ago, consiglieri said: And guess which ones are jumping ship when they find out the Church has been hiding the truth? I find that the LDS Church does occasionally make revisions to its teaching manuals (two primary examples come to mind - "Gospel Principles" and "Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith") while discontinuing the publication of other books like "Gospel Doctrine", "The Progress of Man", and "Doctrines of Salvation". One could either view this as hiding the truth, attempting to revise history, correcting false teachings, or just omitting them because they are less important or irrelevant now. Thanks, Jim
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 5 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: I know nothing of the sort. Bob Crockett's post summed it up rather well and is consistent with the point I was originally making. Your response was disingenuous in that it was an attempt to deflect responsibility for generating the hostility away from consiglieri. So there you go. This is the lengths to which apologists will go to win an argument, I'm afraid.
Recommended Posts