Bishop Waddell on the great and spacious building

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Which is why no dissent nor diversity of opinion is allowed on this Board.  (Salgare, after all, is one of the best Mormon Apologists ™  I know.)

I just happened last night on some of salgare's posts over on the NOM board (under his alternate persona rockslider). It seems he and his cohorts do not think too highly of some of us here, especially me.

(Oh, the things you're apt to learn when you Google your own name.)

Edited April 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

While you're at it please explain how most OT prophets had multiple wives. How Mary was 12-13 years old when she conceived Jesus. How Priesthood was limited to just the eldest son of a High Priest from the tribe of Levi. How Saul/Paul couldn't get the basics right about his experience on the road to Damascus.

1. I think most people can accept the idea of a man having more than one wife.  It's my impression that the discomfort doesn't kick into high gear until people start learning about how Joseph practiced polygamy, especially the deception and dishonesty with Emma, and the ages and marital status of whom he was marrying. 

2.  I don't know that this fact has every been established, or what the relevance would be, unless you're arguing that 12 and 13 year old girls should be able to be married and/or artificially inseminated.

3. If you see an equivalence between the Biblical practice of having a certain group of people perform certain duties with the 20th century policy denying a specific group of people the priesthood (including Temple blessings) based on nothing more than their race and presumed ancestry, there's nothing I can say about that.  If that works for you, then please stick with it.

4. If you see the different versions of Saul's story as being similar to the different versions of the First Vision (especially in their recording and transmission), then great.  Stick with that too.

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

In ancient Jewish culture females became of age at menses. 12-13 years of age. Males at 14.

So it is just a guess, not anything we can rely on.  Would you say that American culture in 1830's was for married men 30+ years old to marry a 14 year old?  Was Joseph 30+ years old when he married Marry?  How is this comparable to assume Marry was a teenager and the fact that Joseph Smith married a 14 year old when he was already married without telling his wife?  Does anyone see a huge difference?  

[canard78]

3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Approval from God.

Approval? Or direction from God?

If it's approval then it still needs a source for the behaviour. If God only approves of the behaviour rather than directs it, wouldn't culture still be the root source of that behaviour?

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just happened last night on some of salgare's posts over on the NOM board (under his alternate persona rockslider). It seems he and his cohorts do not think too highly of some of us here, especially me.

(Oh, the things you're apt to learn when you Google your own name.)

You had to Google your name to figure out you are not highly thought of?

 

Edited April 7, 2016 by consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

On April 7, 2016 at 4:47 PM, consiglieri said:

You had to Google your name to figure out you are not highly thought of?

Considering the source(s) I did find (including Happy Jack Wagon), I'm not too terribly broken up about it. 

I esteem their contempt as a badge of honor. 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Considering the source(s) I did find, I'm not too terribly broken up about it. 

You just reminded me of one of my favourite passages from Milton's Paradise Regained, part of the Saviour's response in the wilderness when Satan seeks to tempt him with glory:

Quote

For what is glory but the blaze of fame,
The people's praise, if always praise unmixed?
And what the people but a herd confused,
A miscellaneous rabble, who extol
Things vulgar, and, well weighed, scarce worth the praise?
They praise and they admire they know not what,
And know not whom, but as one leads the other;
And what delight to be by such extolled,
To live upon their tongues, and be their talk?
Of whom to be dispraised were no small praise—

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 0:53 PM, salgare said:

Poor 3DOP, never got hold of the rod.  Likely because of fence sitting in the pre-mortal existence.

While in your wanderings in the mists of darkness, I suggest avoiding the river if you bump into it.

Hey Salgare,

If you use some suitable emoticons when you are mocking LDS teaching, people are more likely to realise what you are doing. And less likely to think your egregious errors mean you just don't know what you are talking about.

Just a friendly suggestion for you.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 3:40 PM, salgare said:

As Calm notes, typically a Temple Recommend dedicated orthodox Mormon.  This site is infamous for driving TBM's that come across disturbing information and coming with questions into critics.

If that's true, then the "infamy" is manufactured.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 5:19 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

You mean there are people walking around in society today who can't name all the Beatles? Say it isn't so!

Ask around your office. There'll be a few who haven't heard of Pete Best.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎07‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 1:30 PM, cdowis said:

Salgare,

We appreciate that you share your personal opinions with us.  It gives a contrasting colour to our forum here, rather than the same old grey shading.  But, just curious, are you actually acquainted with the reasoning behind the participation in the building of the mall, or is this just another vapid attempt to sound morally outraged.  

"The church is building malls instead of giving all that money to the poor" sort of thing.
LDS Inc.

There is a set of all people who are discussing the Church intelligently.

There is also a set of those who refer to the Church as "LDS Inc."

The intersection of those two sets is the empty set.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Hey Salgare,

If you use some suitable emoticons when you are mocking LDS teaching, people are more likely to realise what you are doing. And less likely to think your egregious errors mean you just don't know what you are talking about.

Just a friendly suggestion for you.

 

 

Then again, there is the possibility he really doesn't know what he's talking about. Perhaps Novak's Law is in play here. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Ask around your office. There'll be a few who haven't heard of Pete Best.

 

For years I felt sorry for Pete Best. Then I saw him do a guest appearance on David Letterman. 

Alas, the man really does lack charisma. 

[Russell C McGregor]

On 4/7/2016 at 10:47 AM, consiglieri said:

You had to Google your name to figure out you are not highly thought of?

 

To be not highly thought of by that shower is a good thing.

I've had a look at the site. Since they're all so hung up on "truth," they should employ a little truth in their self-description.

Since there's no such thing as "new order Mormons," perhaps they should own up to the fact that they are "no order Mormons."

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[consiglieri]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Since there's no such thing as "new order Mormons," perhaps they should own up to the fact that they are "no order Mormons."

 

Just like there's no such thing as "homosexual members of the church."

 

Right?

 

We cannot get rid of people we don't like merely by redefining them out of existence, Russ.

[ALarson]

On 4/7/2016 at 0:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I just happened last night on some of salgare's posts over on the NOM board (under his alternate persona rockslider). It seems he and his cohorts do not think too highly of some of us here, especially me.

(Oh, the things you're apt to learn when you Google your own name.)

I try to avoid that (lol).  But actually I've seen you discussed even just today on another forum (where I occasionally read but usually try to avoid).  Seems you are quite famous (or is that infamous  ?)

But seriously, I don't care too much about what someone says about me who doesn't even know me.

Who knows?  You and salgare may be friends or at least cordial acquaintances if you ever actually met and got to know each other (or were in the same ward).

[cdowis]

45 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Just like there's no such thing as "homosexual members of the church."

 

Right?

 

We cannot get rid of people we don't like merely by redefining them out of existence, Russ.

 

There are members of the church who happen to be homosexual. 
We do not define someone in the church  by their proclivities.  I love chocolate cake, that does not make me a "chocolate cake member of the church".

But I guess that did not cross your mind, right?

Edited April 11, 2016 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 4:51 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Considering the source(s) I did find (including Happy Jack Wagon), I'm not too terribly broken up about it. 

I esteem their contempt as a badge of honor. 

Hey Scott, I just wanted to say, I appreciate your approach to this.  I don't know why those on other sites want to discuss the postings of anyone here.  It's a weird cute world we live in, though.  I think it a bad thing to talk about something behind their back, as they say.  And this seems to be such a case. 

I've seen a few places that this type of thing seems to be the main point of their existence.  What a waste. 

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

There are members of the church who happen to be homosexual. 
We do not define someone in the church  by their proclivities.  I love chocolate cake, that does not make me a "chocolate cake member of the church".

But I guess that did not cross your mind, right?

No, I confess that did not cross my mind.

And I am feeling pretty thankful it didn't . . .  

 

[ALarson]

On 4/7/2016 at 8:09 AM, thesometimesaint said:

In ancient Jewish culture females became of age at menses. 12-13 years of age. Males at 14.

Do you have a source for this?  

Also, where does it state that Mary was only 12 or 13 when she conceived?  Is this just an opinion or is there something recorded regarding this?

Thanks.

[Russell C McGregor]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Just like there's no such thing as "homosexual members of the church."

Did you know that Elder Christofferson wasn't actually denying the existence of such people?

Why, of course you did.

That's why you are misrepresenting him.

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

We cannot get rid of people we don't like merely by redefining them out of existence, Russ.

Of course we can't.

I'm not trying to define anyone out of existence. I'm simply pointing out that those who market themselves as "New Order Mormons" aren't new, they're not very orderly, and they aren't Mormons in any meaningful sense. They are just old order apostates.

But they still exist. It's just that their self-applied label doesn't have much truth in what it advertises.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm not trying to define anyone out of existence. I'm simply pointing out that those who market themselves as "New Order Mormons" aren't new, they're not very orderly, and they aren't Mormons in any meaningful sense. 

Who is trying to "market themselves" and to whom?  And, why do you care what the board is called over there or that some members identify with a group who are in a similar situation as they find themselves in?  

7 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

It's just that their self-applied label doesn't have much truth in what it advertises

Who is advertising (marketing?) New Order Mormons?   Have you even read why they chose the name?

If you have spent any time over on their forum, you'll see that many (most?) of them are still active members of the church who are trying get answers.  I don't read on there as often as I have in the past, but I found some really good, sincere people there and many want to remain in the church.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

To be not highly thought of by that shower is a good thing.

I've had a look at the site. Since they're all so hung up on "truth," they should employ a little truth in their self-description.

Since there's no such thing as "new order Mormons," perhaps they should own up to the fact that they are "no order Mormons."

 

See Russell here is another example of you exercising unrighteous dominion....

Well at least attempting too... and failing miserably.

Have you maybe tried this out in your ward or stake and maybe been reprimanded.  But you do it frequently here. Maybe this is where you can get away with such nonsense.

Because here is the deal.

You don't get to define who is and is not a Mormon.  If there are baptized and confirmed, if they have not been excommunicated, they are still Mormons.  Or Latter-day Saints. 

If they self identify as a New Order Mormon because they have differing views than perhaps is orthodox and that helps them navigate with others that may be like minded that does not make them no order Mormons.  They are still Mormons.  Likely not was wonderful of a Mormon as you but still Mormons.

Sorry to burst your bubble. 

You know my 82 year old dad was not active in the Church from the time he was 18 till about 3 or 4 years ago.  He had lots of bad habits.  Did some pretty rotten things in is mid 40s.  But he always identified with the Church and considered himself a Mormon.

He is very well read, knows the scriptures better than most active LDS, well read in history (he was a history major but had a career in business).  He read many other religious works and such. He always enjoyed discussing religion with just about anybody.

A few years ago he started to pay tithing, He always accepted home teachers.  Then he started going to church.  He never was ordained an Elder. Made to Priest.  His current bishop wants to see him ordained an Elder but there is still some hold back in my dad's personal beliefs so up to this point he has declined.  But he attends and even has a small calling.  By your definition he is not a Mormon because he holds to some beliefs that are not orthodox and is still not sure about some others. 

 

 

 

 

[salgare]

On 4/7/2016 at 1:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I just happened last night on some of salgare's posts over on the NOM board (under his alternate persona rockslider). It seems he and his cohorts do not think too highly of some of us here, especially me.

(Oh, the things you're apt to learn when you Google your own name.)

Using googles advanced search string Scott Lloyd site:NOM board you name only shows up once in association with mine and all I said was something like

Russel, Scott Lloyd and calmoriah are pretty tight (calmoriah is the only one of the three who has class and kindness). 

I'm not sure what you are getting at here?  We could head to social and I'd gladly share my feelings with you Scott.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

Russel, Scott Lloyd and calmoriah are pretty tight.

 

Thanks for the compliment, but am wondering what you mean by this.

Russell and I have had some very significant disagreements over the years, but I do give him credit for being the one ZLMB poster I moderated who never debated about getting dinged.

Scott and I have some significantly different views though I don't think I ever had to moderate him on ZLMB.

I don't have any relationship with either of them outside the public message board, not even sure if I've ever introduced myself to Scott at FM conferences (I think he sits up front, I sit in back so I can get up and walk).  Now if you said I was tight with Juliann, that would make sense to me.  We pass notes to each other in class all the time.

Add-on:  This is not to mean that I don't have respect for Scott or Russell, but the relationship with either of them is as far as I can tell the same relationship they have with dozens of other posters.  

Edited April 12, 2016 by Calm