liz3564 wrote:OK, this made me LOL!!!![]()
![]()
![]()
I think your wife and I would get along great, Kish! LOL
Yes, Mrs. Kishkumen is not to be trifled with.
liz3564 wrote:OK, this made me LOL!!!![]()
![]()
![]()
I think your wife and I would get along great, Kish! LOL
RayAgostini wrote:I'm aware of that, although after only a short while in the Church I was warned by a perceptive member to "be wary of Mormon Doctrine". Initially that warning puzzled me, but I later learned why he was right. There have always been Mormon Doctrine skeptics in the Church, beginning with the GAs themselves. It was not even supposed to go to a second edition, and the references to that are in Steve Benson's article.
Bob Loblaw wrote:In our mission, we referred to MD as "Bruce's Believe It or Not."
RockSlider wrote:Bob Loblaw wrote:In our mission, we referred to MD as "Bruce's Believe It or Not."
Also heard it called "The Gospel according to Bruce"
sock puppet wrote:Put downs of dead LDS apostles are okay in Mormondom, but don't dare put down one of the current ones.
Bob Loblaw wrote:sock puppet wrote:Put downs of dead LDS apostles are okay in Mormondom, but don't dare put down one of the current ones.
McConkie was very much alive when I was on my mission.
Bob Loblaw wrote:sock puppet wrote:Put downs of dead LDS apostles are okay in Mormondom, but don't dare put down one of the current ones.
McConkie was very much alive when I was on my mission.
sock puppet wrote:And he was dismissed in that way by the missionaries?
Bob Loblaw wrote:sock puppet wrote:And he was dismissed in that way by the missionaries?
Yep, in between jokes about Packer and the little factory.
Kishkumen wrote:And yet devils believe. You write as though belief, in and of itself, were a sufficient virtue to save, or that disbelief were a sufficient vice to invalidate anything a person writes that you don't personally agree with (which is essentially Jones' standard). That's too bad, really, since it is absolutely false.
Kishkumen wrote:I know you are a little slow on the uptake, Pahoran, but the argument is that one's personal assessment of another person's morality is not always a reliable guide, as the Christian assessment of Joseph Smith demonstrates clearly enough.
Kishkumen wrote:Unfortunately for you, that is not a "smearing by association argument."
Kishkumen wrote:Pahoran, unlike you, I am not in the habit of defending everything that everyone I associate with writes. But I will say this, MCB's take on the Book of Mormon is no less plausible than your theory regarding priesthood in Alma.
Kishkumen wrote:In any case, yes, Darth, Pahoran is defending what amounts to an unreliable and idiotic standard for determining the causes of belief or unbelief, one that is not even consistently and clearly supported by the scriptures he proof-texts.