Fair Dinkum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 33 minutes ago, latterdaytemplar said: To break down your claim here, FD: FAIR teaches something different from the prophets and scriptures of the Church. This is based on your premise that FAIR has an understanding that science does not support a literal Adam, Eve, or Noah. The fact that you present an otherwise false dichotomy here (whether to follow "the prophets or F.A.I.R.") lends even more to your premise that to accept one must require the rejection of the other; and, therefore, that FAIR must not support the literal Adam, Eve, or Noah that are taught by the prophets and scriptures of the Church. I see only one logical conclusion that can be derived from your position here: namely, that FAIR's different teachings are A) consequential of the rejection of and B) tantamount to a replacement of the teachings from the prophets and scripture of the Church (and, thus, a rejection of the principle of a literal Adam, Eve, or Noah). I personally disagree with your premise (as I subscribe to the Promethean Adam model) and find your question here to be nothing more than a false dichotomy; the leadership and guidance of the prophets and scriptures of the Church can go hand-in-hand with the findings that FAIR provides. As far as doctrine is concerned, it is a basic tenet in the Church we do not believe that everything written in our scriptures must be exactly right. I direct your attention to the following passages of scripture: —"Title Page of the Book of Mormon," The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. 2013. Print. —Moroni 9:33, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. 2013. Print. —Article of Faith 1:8-9, The Pearl of Great Price. 2013. Print. I see no reason against our understanding of the Flood to evolve, given that: Moses himself described a flat earth in the opening chapters of Genesis. The understandings of God's faithful disciples have clearly evolved and improved since that time. We do not believe our prophets/scriptures to be infallible/inerrant. Our prophets/scriptures can therefore improve over time and experience. Thus, there is no reason why one must choose the prophets/scriptures of the Church over FAIR or vice-versa when one can simply choose to follow the prophets/scriptures while using FAIR as a supplementary resource therefor (which seems to be FAIR's purpose in a nutshell to begin with). I actually agree with a lot of your post. My OP was merely pointing out that at least on this subject, FAIR has been more forthcoming then LDS prophets. I still disagree with their conclusions but at least they're making an attempt to acknowledge reality, the prophets don't.
Fair Dinkum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's religion! It's a matter of faith. Believing Christ raised from the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine. Science says no. Faith says yes. Why is the LDS faith the whipping boy for your scientific crusade? I have faith, I believe Joseph. I believe he saw Adam and Eve and Noah, and that he had physical contact with Noah in the form of laying on of hands. I also believe God's son Jesus Christ was born, died, and rose the third day. That he raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, cast out devils etc. This is a board for discussion of religion right? Why is the LDS faith the whipping boy for your scientific crusade? Well if by whipping boy you mean holding them accountable for their truth claims, the Why I care is because Mormonism is my tribe. The church demands complete loyalty in this life and makes promises in this life that will only be paid after we die. Eternal Life, families being together forever, godhood (or has that one been taken off the the plate). I think given all that the church demands of us and take aka 10%) we deserve to be told the truth and we also deserve to be able to hold them accountable when their teachings are proven to be false...because so much is being asked of us to sacraficed in this life as believers. We're banking on it being true, on them being able to deliver the rewards. but what if it's all just a huge religious Ponzi Scheme? That we've all fallen for a fraud. How would we know? Seriously how would you know if you've been duped? I recognize that most here don't care. They're happy in their beliefs and are willing to live their lives as faithful believing Mormons through to their eventual deaths. But IF its all just made up, if the emperor has no clothes, there are some of us that would like to know that in THIS life.
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 48 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: YES...exactly it is a metaphor to teach a lesson. But Mormon prophets have also made it a literal, necessary historical event and that is the problem. Mormonism is built on these false foundations. Ignoring this reality doesn't make them disappear but it can reduce the cognitive dissonance one might have from thinking too deeply about its implications. I think you missed the part where I said IT DOESN'T MATTER if the story is allegedly true or allegedly false. There is NO WAY to differentiate the scientific truth or falsity either way, so we might as well take the message that is there to help our lives IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS INTENDED by its AUTHOR! God loves us! He will save his covenant people IFF ("if and only if in logic-ese) they follow His commandments and WORK to follow him!! How does building an ark compare with what any of us have done BASED ON TESTIMONY that the words come from GOD? Think of Noah - real or not- and how he might have wondered "Hmmm.... was that voice I heard REALLY GOD or my imagination?" Are we willing to do the work because we have made covenants? The STORY itself TEACHES us these things IF it IS or IS NOT "true"- defined as "really happening" - whatever THAT means- the PRINCIPLES to be learned are TRUE to the believer. The BELIEFS are beneficial, just as the myth that people ought to have HUMAN RIGHTS is a beneficial belief for mankind. THAT is the criterion that makes scripture "real"- it teaches TRUE BELIEFS that are BENEFICIAL to MANKIND Sorry for yelling- but very few seem to be able to comprehend the idea. TAKE IT LITERALLY Or not!! It doesn't matter if we look at the priniples being taught
Fair Dinkum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 Just now, mfbukowski said: I think you missed the part where I said IT DOESN'T MATTER if the story is allegedly true or allegedly false. There is NO WAY to differentiate the scientific truth or falsity either way, so we might as well take the message that is there to help our lives IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS INTENDED by its AUTHOR! God loves us! He will save his covenant people IFF ("if and only if in logic-ese) they follow His commandments and WORK to follow him!! How does building an ark compare with what any of us have done BASED ON TESTIMONY that the words come from GOD? Think of Noah - real or not- and how he might have wondered "Hmmm.... was that voice I heard REALLY GOD or my imagination?" Are we willing to do the work because we have made covenants? The STORY itself TEACHES us these things IF it IS or IS NOT "true"- defined as "really happening" - whatever THAT means- the PRINCIPLES to be learned are TRUE to the believer. The BELIEFS are beneficial, just as the myth that people ought to have HUMAN RIGHTS is a beneficial belief for mankind. THAT is the criterion that makes scripture "real"- it teaches TRUE BELIEFS that are BENEFICIAL to MANKIND Sorry for yelling- but very few seem to be able to comprehend the idea. TAKE IT LITERALLY Or not!! It doesn't matter if we look at the priniples being taught I'm suspicious of people that claim to hear the voice of God in their heads especially if that voice eventually asks that person to demand money or sex from their followers or even worse if it asks them to take a life as was done with Nephi of the Lafferty brothers.
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 20 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: ....holding them accountable for their truth claims.... Ah the famous phrase which is totally unsupported by its own principles.... What is "truth"? Is it true that humans have unalienable rights given to them by......? THAT is a "truth claim"- go ahead and prove it! "Truth" has been unable to be defined clearly for 2500 years in writings of some of the smartest people who ever lived and now we debate "truth claims?" Is it true that the sky is "blue"? THAT is an invention in your brain. Is it "true" that you should be a doctor lawyer or tribal chief? Why does the world exist? Either way you see it implies a teleological reply. "It was by chance"-- Prove it! "God made it in six days" -- Prove it! How does one know what the word true even means ?
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 10 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: I'm suspicious of people that claim to hear the voice of God in their heads especially if that voice eventually asks that person to demand money or sex from their followers or even worse if it asks them to take a life as was done with Nephi of the Lafferty brothers. Of course! And that is why they should be following what happens in theor OWN heads! Why should one ask questions if one already has the answer resolved in one's own head? You make your decisions and ACT. Why start an argument for the purpose of starting an argument? THAT itself is a WHY question. "Why do I do this?" Guess what? Your answer- and MINE- cannot be proven "true" even by your own standard or mine!
pogi Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said: YES...exactly it is a metaphor to teach a lesson. But Mormon prophets have also made it a literal, necessary historical event and that is the problem. Mormonism is built on these false foundations. Ignoring this reality doesn't make them disappear but it can reduce the cognitive dissonance one might have from thinking too deeply about its implications. I can see how that would be troubling if one based their testimony on the inerrancy of prophets. On matters like this (where it doesn't matter to my faith or salvation if the story is literal or not) I give more wiggle room to the prophets. I don't need to believe everything they say before I believe that they are prophets. It might be difficult for some to accept them as prophets when they make such obvious (to them) blunders and mistakes on matters of "fact", but for me, I oddly take comfort in it all. It tells me a lot about God and his plan, and comforts me in knowing that I am not expected to know everything. Neither are his prophets. Nobody is expected to know anything with certainty - and I don't believe anyone possibly can. I am only expected to feel after him, palpating along the elephant, and perpetuate what works and bears fruit. This process is increasingly enlightening and forgiving of imperfection and mistakes in perception. It helps me understand better the nature of God's plan and direction of his church and infinite patience towards us fallible humans. We are not supposed to know everything. What a relief! We need to have more compassion on ourselves and others in our ignorance - even prophets. 3
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 24 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: I'm suspicious of people that claim to hear the voice of God in their heads especially if that voice eventually asks that person to demand money or sex from their followers or even worse if it asks them to take a life as was done with Nephi of the Lafferty brothers. And what tells YOU that it is wrong to Quote to demand money or sex from their followers or even worse if it asks them to take a life as was done with Nephi of the Lafferty brothers. Even atheists acknowledge the conscience. What is that other than a "voice in your head?" Want to hear famous athiest Christopher Hitchens admit that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQgbi56FFZY 1
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 6 minutes ago, pogi said: I can see how that would be troubling if one based their testimony on the inerrancy of prophets. On matters like this (where it doesn't matter to my faith or salvation if the story is literal or not) I give more wiggle room to the prophets. I don't need to believe everything they say before I believe that they are prophets. It might be difficult for some to accept them as prophets when they make such obvious (to them) blunders and mistakes on matters of "fact", but for me, I oddly take comfort in it all. It tells me a lot about God and his plan, and comforts me in knowing that I am not expected to know everything. Neither are his prophets. Nobody is expected to know anything with certainty - and I don't believe anyone possibly can. I am only expected to feel after him, palpating along the elephant, and perpetuate what works and bears fruit. This process is increasingly enlightening and forgiving of imperfection and mistakes in perception. It helps me understand better the nature of God's plan and direction of his church and infinite patience towards us fallible humans. We are not supposed to know everything. What a relief! We need to have more compassion on ourselves and others in our ignorance - even prophets. Palpating an elephant! 😱
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 55 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Why is the LDS faith the whipping boy for your scientific crusade? Well if by whipping boy you mean holding them accountable for their truth claims, the Why I care is because Mormonism is my tribe. The church demands complete loyalty in this life and makes promises in this life that will only be paid after we die. Eternal Life, families being together forever, godhood (or has that one been taken off the the plate). I think given all that the church demands of us and take aka 10%) we deserve to be told the truth and we also deserve to be able to hold them accountable when their teachings are proven to be false...because so much is being asked of us to sacraficed in this life as believers. We're banking on it being true, on them being able to deliver the rewards. but what if it's all just a huge religious Ponzi Scheme? That we've all fallen for a fraud. How would we know? Seriously how would you know if you've been duped? I recognize that most here don't care. They're happy in their beliefs and are willing to live their lives as faithful believing Mormons through to their eventual deaths. But IF its all just made up, if the emperor has no clothes, there are some of us that would like to know that in THIS life. So you only care to harrass Church members that believe in supposedly non-scientific beliefs and not all religions that believe in non-scientific beliefs. Interesting. Is the goal in that to get as many members of "your tribe" to leave as possible? I'm trying to understand if it's the fact that any religion believes non-scientific beliefs that bothers you or if you only care about specifically breaking Church member testimonies. 3
Fair Dinkum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 16 minutes ago, pogi said: I can see how that would be troubling if one based their testimony on the inerrancy of prophets. On matters like this (where it doesn't matter to my faith or salvation if the story is literal or not) I give more wiggle room to the prophets. I don't need to believe everything they say before I believe that they are prophets. It might be difficult for some to accept them as prophets when they make such obvious (to them) blunders and mistakes on matters of "fact", but for me, I oddly take comfort in it all. It tells me a lot about God and his plan, and comforts me in knowing that I am not expected to know everything. Neither are his prophets. Nobody is expected to know anything with certainty - and I don't believe anyone possibly can. I am only expected to feel after him, palpating along the elephant, and perpetuate what works and bears fruit. This process is increasingly enlightening and forgiving of imperfection and mistakes in perception. It helps me understand better the nature of God's plan and direction of his church and infinite patience towards us fallible humans. We are not supposed to know everything. What a relief! We need to have more compassion on ourselves and others in our ignorance - even prophets. Please answer these questions: 01. True or False: The Garden of Eden was in Missouri 02. True or False: There was NO death prior to the Fall of Adam 03. True or False: Christ's atonement is necessary to over come the consequences of the Fall?
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Please answer these questions: 01. True or False: The Garden of Eden was in Missouri 02. True or False: There was NO death prior to the Fall of Adam 03. True or False: Christ's atonement is necessary to over come the consequences of the Fall? 1. True 2. True (within this creation) 3. True
Fair Dinkum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So you only care to harrass Church members that believe in supposedly non-scientific beliefs and not all religions that believe in non-scientific beliefs. Interesting. Is the goal in that to get as many members of "your tribe" to leave as possible? I'm trying to understand if it's the fact that any religion believes non-scientific beliefs that bothers you or if you only care about specifically breaking Church member testimonies. How did my questions become harassment? How do my questions break testimonies? If anything I post causes anyone to question their beliefs ( I doubt they do...this group seem beyond questioning their beliefs) that could only happen and i might add I would only want that to happen if what I post is based in truth that conflicts with LDS truth claims. Again my tribe is Mormonism...I'll let Scientologists, JW's and yes even traditional denominations like Catholics or protestants take care of their own tribes...I really have no interest in challenging their truth claims.
Fair Dinkum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: 1. True 2. True (within this creation) 3. True Thank you. So you obviously hold to a universal flood model for Noah right? What do you base this position on given the overwhelming evidence that conflicts with this POV?
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 Just now, Fair Dinkum said: Thank you. So you obviously hold to a universal flood model for Noah right? What do you base this position on given the overwhelming evidence that conflicts with this POV? Yes. I believe the Earth had to receive a baptism of water, fire, and the holy ghost. Just as we do. The "overwhelming evidence" is based on man's limited understanding. Bottom line - science is wrong, or at least operating on limited knowledge to reach its conclusions. There are many, many things in scripture that scientific evidence says is impossible. Starting with the resurrection of our Savior. Dead bodies don't reanimate according to science. If you want to hit at the non-scientific foundations of our religion then the resurrection makes far more sense as a target than the flood or Adam and Eve. Noah, Adam, and Eve are not foundational doctrines. The resurrection is. 4
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: Please answer these questions: 01. True or False: The Garden of Eden was in Missouri 02. True or False: There was NO death prior to the Fall of Adam 03. True or False: Christ's atonement is necessary to over come the consequences of the Fall? Do you EVER even read the answers you receive? I have been over this for YEARS demolishing your "truth claims" without, as I recall, even a wink of an answer to my questions for you. If you want to be a critic you need to move it up a few notches. This is incredibly easy stuff that I have answered over and over. Define what YOU mean by truth and we will have something to talk about Over and out. And this is summary of the work of one of my professors the UCLA, Robert C Solomon. It follows contemporary philosophy to a "T". You are out of date, dude! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Solomon Quote Solomon developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions as moral judgements about reality that inherently manifest a natural, pre-deliberative logic. As such, they are susceptible to rational appraisal and revision no less than our beliefs and propositions, and furthermore to strategic ethical reasoning. Emotions should not be suppressed or repressed by efforts at philosophic rationalism, which suffers a withering critique under his analysis, calling it "emasculated" and "absurd". It is our passions, according to R.Solomon, and not our reason, which are capable of demonstrating to us the meaning and purpose of life.[1] Every emotion has an purpose or goal, even those that seem stupid or painful. Although the objects and strategies differ with each emotion, person, and relationship,[2] the natural purpose of each is to maximize human dignity, the good for oneself and for humankind. Regarding the "air of paradox surrounding an attempt by philosophy to deal with the passions" and the "certain irony that surrounds an attempt by philosophy to deal with the question of the meaning of life", Solomon asks, "is not philosophy, itself, the problem?". Romeo's conclusion constitutes his premise: "Hang up philosophy! Unless philosophy can make a Juliet."[3][4] He derides modernist and contemporary theories of the mind and psyche influenced by materialism and scientism as having created a "myth of the passions",[5] which he explodes, exposing the vicissitudes of its "hydraulic model". Edited July 15, 2022 by mfbukowski
Kevin Christensen Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 (edited) Regarding the notion of the flood as the baptism of the earth, back in May 2014 Ben McGuire posted this here: Quote The biggest problem with a universal flood as a baptism is that it would require that the earth not only to have agency, but the capacity for sin (and not just the capacity for sin, but the reality of sin). Otherwise, as Moroni put it: "And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption." Isn't the earth already atoned for in the infinite atonement provided by Jesus Christ? It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no global flood in light of an absolute absence of data supporting such an event in the historical record. It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no global flood in light of the absolute impossibility of a flood that covered every inch of the earth to the depth described in Genesis. It seems far more reasonable to assert that there was no need for the earth to be baptized because it is not an intelligent entity with agency capable of sinning. And it seems far more reasonable to reject the notion of a global flood on the basis that every thing we know of the diversity of life on planet earth (including the genetic diversity of mankind) stands in stark contrast to the idea that all life was destroyed except for what would fit on that boat. And then of course, we have the real reality that most of the early LDS who believed in the notion that the earth was baptized brought this belief into Mormonism with them from their earlier faith traditions. It was not an uncommon notion prior to 1830. It remained a common interpretation of that verse in the New Testament. And in the absence of any revelation on the subject, there is no reason at all to accept this beyond the notion of a tradition that has been erroneously passed down to us today. Are we really so tied to young earth creationism and fundamentalist readings of scripture to assert that the science has no meaning? I guess for some, we are ... as Moroni continues (vss. 22-23): "For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing— But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works." Ben M. Yes. While it is easy to find LDS people passing along their belief in the flood as a baptism of the earth, that is not an LDS revelation, nor original to the LDS, but simply one more interpretive tradition that passes though our culture because of the larger and older Christian cultures which passed them to us, and some LDS thinkers assume that anything they heard in an LDS setting must have come from the lips of someone who got it from someone who must have known more than mere mortals, rather than speaking common thoughts, which are not binding on us, and certainly not on me personally. Of course, floods do happen, even very large ones, and how that all relates to a range of LDS thought can be profitably explored. https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/134-27-45.pdf Nibley's 1980 "Before Adam" talk pointed out some notable things about the flood story, and LDS tendencies to not read or source carefully as well. Alas, it not available online anymore thanks to the 2016 change at the Maxwell Institute website. And Hamlet's Mill has some very interesting things to say on the flood as well, and why flood stories appear in many cultures throughout the world. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited July 15, 2022 by Kevin Christensen 4
The Nehor Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: We're taught to "Follow the Prophet, He knows the way" But clearly they often lead us in to falsehoods, myths and fiction and clearly do not always know the way. The list is long where IF we had followed prophets we would have been lead to believe in falsehoods. On this subject clearly FAIR offers a more correct doctrine than our prophets. If Prophets can teach falsehoods why put our faith in them...better to relay on empirical evidence , critical thinking, science and ultimately capital T TRUTH instead of the false teachings of well meaning but often incorrect human beings. NOW please don't misinterpret my words. The LDS prophets are good well meaning men, and I do follow them in areas where they do teach truth such as being loving our neighbor, (except, for example, when they teach us not to love our neighbor, then I use my critical thinking and reject their council aka the LGBTQ community) Yep, textbook concern trolling. -1
Fair Dinkum Posted July 15, 2022 Author Posted July 15, 2022 57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Do you EVER even read the answers you receive? I have been over this for YEARS demolishing your "truth claims" without, as I recall, even a wink of an answer to my questions for you. If you want to be a critic you need to move it up a few notches. This is incredibly easy stuff that I have answered over and over. Define what YOU mean by truth and we will have something to talk about Over and out. the questions were not directed to you but to JLHPROF, you are however welcome to reply to them if you'd like...but I'm going to guess that your answers would be completely opposite of his/hers. Oh and I'm not a critic
Vanguard Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: I'd like to back off my earlier statement. I may have come off too harshly. It would have been better had I merely stated that I am a skeptic and I seriously doubt the truth claims of the church based mainly on the fact that its prophets have taught many provable falsehoods in the past and at least for me, have lost credibility. That said I would very much like the church to be everything it claims. Ok. So you are still a theist though skeptical of the LDS truth claims?
pogi Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: Please answer these questions: 01. True or False: The Garden of Eden was in Missouri 02. True or False: There was NO death prior to the Fall of Adam 03. True or False: Christ's atonement is necessary to over come the consequences of the Fall? The nature of these questions suggest that you missed my point. You seem to insist on a black/white approach to epistemology with a leaning towards absolute truth and absolute knowledge of truth. Orthodoxy emphasizes "correct belief", but I lean more towards orthopraxy which emphasizes "correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical." I think a lot of people who leave the church over issues such as this are strictly orthodox in their thinking - and therefore they feel disillusioned when they come to believe other than what the church teaches on some issues. I no longer think in terms of black and white. I can only tell you what I believe and interpret from my faith and my understanding of science. These questions are not really relevant to my personal spiritual well-being in mortality or my day-to-day orthopraxic practice of ethical and liturgical conduct. The fact is that you are asking me something that I can't know with absolute certainty. All I can say is that "I don't know." I am comfortable with that. I can't know with absolute certainty if or where Eden was if it actually existed. If I was to follow the best scientific evidence I would suggest that the idea of a first man and women being created from the dust is silly. And if there really was an Adam and Eve, they likely came from Africa much longer than a few thousand years ago and were black, not white. There may be a tension between what the prophets have historically said on these issues and what science says. I am ok with that. It doesn't honestly matter to me who is right on this issue. If the prophets have been wrong, I am ok with that too. If the story of the garden is metaphorical to teach us a lesson - that makes more sense to me personally. That is what I choose to believe. Edited July 15, 2022 by pogi 2
InCognitus Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Nibley's 1980 "Before Adam" talk pointed out some notable things about the flood story, and LDS tendencies to not read or source carefully as well. Alas, it not available online anymore thanks to the 2016 change at the Maxwell Institute website. Oddly, it's available on Youtube in audio, here (not in Nibley's voice, but with someone else reading the essay). And another website has it here. Edited July 15, 2022 by InCognitus 2
pogi Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: the questions were not directed to you but to JLHPROF, you are however welcome to reply to them if you'd like...but I'm going to guess that your answers would be completely opposite of his/hers. Oh and I'm not a critic I think they were directed at me, actually.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2022 Posted July 15, 2022 6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: Brother Lloyd (spelled with 2 L's not one) I do not find the spelling of your name at all remarkable. As I am sure you are very much aware, the common first or last name of Lloyd can be spelled multiple ways. It can be spelled as Lloyd, Lloyde, Loyd, Loid, Lloid or Loyde, perhaps there are even more derivatives that I am unaware of. Because I KNOW that you have a penchant for exactness and perfection in both grammar and spelling and have the annoying habit of correcting others mistakes, mainly posters who tend to be less faithful ( I could be wrong, perhaps you also correct believers grammar as well), I was merely returning the favor by stating the obvious, that I was in fact spelling your last name with 2 L's correctly to save you the trouble of correcting me on it's spelling. Looks like you’ve Googled the name to fact check yourself. Glad you’re clear on it now.
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2022 Posted July 16, 2022 3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: the questions were not directed to you but to JLHPROF, you are however welcome to reply to them if you'd like...but I'm going to guess that your answers would be completely opposite of his/hers. Oh and I'm not a critic So you can't answer my questions by defining "truth". Ok.
Recommended Posts