Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_Doctor Scratch]

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=282

My name is "Daniel Peterson," not "Louis Midgley."

Two questions:

1) Did you edit the issue?
2) When I made my first post on this thread, was I singling you out, or was I talking about Mopologists generally?

I do distinctly recall you saying something here on this board about Decker, Martin, et al. (you might not have named those individuals specifically, but it was a list of well-known Mormon critics) as doing anti-Mormonism for a living.

Ed Decker does (and Walter Martin did) do anti-Mormonism for a living. It is a full-time job for Decker. And criticizing non-evangelical religious beliefs (including Mormonism) was a full-time job for Martin.

But that, by itself, does little or nothing to demonstrate that such people are or were motivated solely or primarily or even a teensy little bit by greed.

Where did I say that you or any other Mopologist has treated them as being "solely or primarily" motivated by greed?

But my point here, more simply and basically, is that there is an unreasonable and reactionary defensiveness on the part of the Mopologists when it comes to the issue of the Church and money.

I don't think I'm being "unreasonable," "reactionary," or overly "defensive" to object to Harmony's accusation that President Packer has corruptly built up a lavish estate by exploiting widows, orphans, and the poor.

I've been in his home. I've seen it. Her accusation is flatly false.

Your reaction is over the top.

I don't see much point in continuing this. Harmony has expressed her views on this matter. I've said that I find them absurd, unjust, and hateful.

Well, I find your responses reactionary, unreasonable, and overly defensive.

I can't imagine that much will be achieved by each of us reasserting our positions.

Then quit reasserting your position. You've done it what, 2 or 3 dozen times at this point?

I see nothing wrong with a church or any other non-profit investing its funds so as to maximize its ability to carry out its core missions. That seems to me merely prudent.

Harmony disagrees.

That seems like a libelous distortion of her views.

Harmony does not believe that churches should sponsor colleges and universities.

I disagree.

I've been in President Packer's home, and I find it quite modest.

Harmony has not, but finds it obscenely lavish.

Harmony believes that people who work for the Church, even indirectly, should not have homes or bicycles for their children or savings accounts or non-essential nutrition.

I disagree.

Our disagreement is manifestly clear, and there's little prospect that either of us will shift toward the other's position.

You know, Prof. P., I don't understand how you think you've got a basis for complaining about having your views "misrepresented" when you've engaged in such outrageous misrepresentation of Harmony's views on this thread. As she would say, "Good grief!"

[_Daniel Peterson]

1) Did you edit the issue?

I did. But I routinely edit and publish articles that I didn't write and, in whole or (mostly, and mostly in part) wouldn't have written.

2) When I made my first post on this thread, was I singling you out, or was I talking about Mopologists generally?

"Mopologists" in general haven't been posting on this thread. So your comment was either about me (or Pahoran) or it was irrelevant. And Pahoran, so far as I can recall, has also never made a big deal anywhere about anti-Mormon ministries being motivated by greed.

Lou Midgley isn't posting on this thread, either, so far as I can tell. (Perhaps he posts as "Harmony"?)

Your reaction is over the top.

Yawn. I disagree. Anyhow, you disapprove of just about everything I do and say. And you try to make every thread about me. It's your raison d'être.

I'm leaving the thread. You'll have to follow me elsewhere. (I have no doubt that you will.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

1) Did you edit the issue?

I did. But I routinely edit and publish articles that I didn't write and, in whole or (mostly, and mostly in part) wouldn't have written.

My question had less to do with you having "written" the article than with the issue of whether or not you agreed with the content therein.

2) When I made my first post on this thread, was I singling you out, or was I talking about Mopologists generally?

"Mopologists" in general haven't been posting on this thread.

Meaning what, exactly? That a general statement necessarily has to refer to two specific posters posting on a given thread?

So your comment was either about me (or Pahoran) or it was irrelevant.

It was about Mopologists generally. Here, try an experiment: register a sockpuppet over at MDD and start up a thread about the Church's secrecy in regards to money. See how many people react defensively.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel Peterson has left the thread.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Farewell, Dr. Peterson.

[_Pahoran]

I don't think I'm being "unreasonable," "reactionary," or overly "defensive" to object to Harmony's accusation that President Packer has corruptly built up a lavish estate by exploiting widows, orphans, and the poor.

I've been in his home. I've seen it. Her accusation is flatly false.

Your reaction is over the top.

I can see why someone whose lifelong hobby is harassing and falsely accusing better people than himself would think it "over the top" to simply point out that an accusation is false.

But I'm afraid you're just going to have to suck it up.

I don't see much point in continuing this. Harmony has expressed her views on this matter. I've said that I find them absurd, unjust, and hateful.

Well, I find your responses reactionary, unreasonable, and overly defensive.

Of course you do. You're sticking up for your fellow-hater and obsessive false accuser.

I see nothing wrong with a church or any other non-profit investing its funds so as to maximize its ability to carry out its core missions. That seems to me merely prudent.

Harmony disagrees.

That seems like a libelous distortion of her views.

No, it's a thoroughly accurate representation of her views:

Why does a church... God's own true church... need to own companies? The church should NOT own companies; the church's money (or rather, God's money) should be used to further God's Kingdom, NOT to own businesses!

And:

Tithing should never be used to purchase businesses. Businesses that are given to the church should be sold and the money used to build the kingdom. The church has/had no business being in business!

Explain, please, where "Tithing Trough" Harmony makes any allowance at all for the Church to invest its surplus in a financially prudent way.

Harmony does not believe that churches should sponsor colleges and universities.

I disagree.

I've been in President Packer's home, and I find it quite modest.

Harmony has not, but finds it obscenely lavish.

Harmony believes that people who work for the Church, even indirectly, should not have homes or bicycles for their children or savings accounts or non-essential nutrition.

I disagree.

Our disagreement is manifestly clear, and there's little prospect that either of us will shift toward the other's position.

You know, Prof. P., I don't understand how you think you've got a basis for complaining about having your views "misrepresented" when you've engaged in such outrageous misrepresentation of Harmony's views on this thread. As she would say, "Good grief!"

Call for references that Dan has misprepresented "Tithing Trough" Harmony's views in any way at all.

I can't wait to see you try.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm confused, Pahoran, as to where in the scriptures that your treatment of Harmony is justifiable. You *are* a priesthood holder, are you not? It seems to me that your treatment of this daughter of Heavenly Father has been stunningly cruel, vicious, and very much outside of what you've been taught to do.

[_jon]

Pahoran wrote (with reference to the relatively modest amount of Church money that goes to humanitarian spending):

Sorry jon, but the Church supplements those funds, as needed, from the tithing funds.

Pahoran - prove that, show that money from Tithing gets spent on humanitarian aid.
Don't fudge
Don't dodge
Don't duck
Don't dive
Just provide evidence (not personal testimony) that backs up your statement.

[_Pahoran]

I'm confused, Pahoran, as to where in the scriptures that your treatment of Harmony is justifiable. You *are* a priesthood holder, are you not? It seems to me that your treatment of this daughter of Heavenly Father has been stunningly cruel, vicious, and very much outside of what you've been taught to do.

So in your view it is "stunningly cruel, vicious, and very much outside of what [I've] been taught to do" to accurately report "Tithing Trough" Harmony's views, is it?

Because it is a clear, unequivocal fact that Harmony applied the phrase "Tithing trough" to the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ. Why is it so "stunningly cruel, vicious" etc. to award that phrase to its owner?

And it is a clear, unequivocal fact that Harmony has adamantly opposed the Church having any investments of any kind, and has done so in this very thread. Why is it so "stunningly cruel, vicious" etc. to report that fact, in rebuttal of your reflexively false accusation that it is a "libelous distortion?"

Likewise, why is it so "stunningly cruel, vicious" etc. to report that Dan accurately reported Harmony's irrational opposition to the Church owning and supporting BYU, her coyly implied but still quite clearly communicated view that BYU employees should not be able to afford to take their children to the movies, etc.?

Actually if you really want an example of something "stunningly cruel, vicious" etc., how about Harmony's insistence that the children of BYU professors should grow up in bread-line poverty, having nothing but the barest necessities of life, even in a land teeming with plenty?

Tell us how you make that into a shining example of Christ-like charity, Scratchy. Because I can't wait to see you do it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

How in the world can Mr. Pahoran talk with any amount of authority on the issue of tithes and the Mormon church's finances? The books are close, and unless he starts using citations he's simply, as always, making stuff up (that's known as lying in polite circles).

V/R
Dr. Cameron