Daniel Peterson wrote:It's rare -- it's unprecedented, actually -- for Marg and me to agree, but she's definitely right this time.
I don't care to discuss it any further, harmony, but your reasoning on this one strikes me as ludicrous. Actually, it strikes me as rather desperate after-the-fact rationalization.
You may or may not have intended the word in a non-obscene way, but that's definitely how your use of it came across. And your attempt to justify your usage on the basis of the scriptures simply doesn't work. In fact, it's ridiculous.
For the record, as if anyone else needed to opine, I am familiar with the passages about kicking against the pricks. And when Harm said what she said to Dan I did not equate it at all to the way she is now explaining it. I will take her at her word, but I sure never would have got there.
antishock8 wrote:I love the fact that Harmony has now said prick at least a dozen times, and the word "c***" has been bandied about, too.
Do not circumvent the word censor. Allow it to do its work.
My post is moved to outdarkness for "hostility". Weird.
Your deraliment was hostile, not so much your post.
Your intent was to disrupt a thread in progress, not to add content.
Wow. You know my intent? You, Sir, have an amazing ability to miss the point sometimes. Let me explain what my intent was vice you assuming to know what it was:
1) I wasn't "circumventing" the word censor. I was typing the word in the same exact manner it was produced in the first place. The "intent" behind that was to show that the word was being used and wasn't being censored, nor moved... Hostility aside.
2) There was no hostility in my post. My point wasn't to derail, but to illustrate a clear moderating bias. I knew that those two posters could use the words "pricks" and "cunts", but if I posted just one, non-vulgar word, that it would be moderated. I'm pretty sure my single-word post would not have derailed the thread, and in fact... It would have been ignored.
Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.
Cool! Can you show me where this happened? And where the Church has officially accepted the two Cumorah theory?
Also, I think that we would probably expect that more of them would be called to their offices on the basis of spiritual gifts, rather than their business and administrative acumen.
Are the two mutually exclusive? Can we also note that we have numerous educators among the top ranks?
Indeed, things have come a long way. Whereas B. H. Roberts was dismissed for urging the Brethren to let go of the notion that the Book of Mormon was strictly historical, now the Chairmen of the Board actively request that the Church's well-compensated apologists formulate silly theories and revenge strategies in order to bolster the Church's increasingly shaky spiritual foundations.
Mister Scratch wrote:Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.
When did the "Brethren" ever begin publicly and officially supporting a >1 Cumorah theory?
antishock8 wrote:1) I wasn't "circumventing" the word censor. I was typing the word in the same exact manner it was produced in the first place. The "intent" behind that was to show that the word was being used and wasn't being censored, nor moved... Hostility aside.
You're wrong. The "c" word was being censored. The word "vagina," which you typed, wasn't. They're two different words.
2) There was no hostility in my post. My point wasn't to derail, but to illustrate a clear moderating bias. I knew that those two posters could use the words "pricks" and "cunts", but if I posted just one, non-vulgar word, that it would be moderated.
The "c" word has been in the censor for many months.
I'm pretty sure my single-word post would not have derailed the thread, and in fact... It would have been ignored.
Next time, explain your intent.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Mister Scratch wrote:Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.
When did the "Brethren" ever begin publicly and officially supporting a >1 Cumorah theory?
Hi there, cinepro. Well, we are now "officially" entering the very murky waters of "official," "public" LDS doctrine. To cut to the chase: I'm speaking specifically of the so-called "2nd Watson Letter," in which 1st Presidency Secretary Michael Watson (supposedly) "officially" recanted his earlier, "official" statement that the Hill Cumorah is, and always has been, located in New York. We know that Bill Hamblin somehow persuaded Watson to write the second letter, though we don't know how Hamblin accomplished this, since neither DCP nor Bill Hamblin will tell us.
So, is this legitimately "official"? I would say yes, insofar as any Church teaching is "official."
I promise to never use prick again. Now I'll call him a self-righteous arrogant stick with a metal point on it.
How's that? Is that too sexual for anyone?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.
Cool! Can you show me where this happened? And where the Church has officially accepted the two Cumorah theory?
I'd be glad to, Jason, as soon as you can provide me with a really solid, workable definition of just what, exactly, constitutes "official" doctrine within the LDS Church.
Also, I think that we would probably expect that more of them would be called to their offices on the basis of spiritual gifts, rather than their business and administrative acumen.
Are the two mutually exclusive? Can we also note that we have numerous educators among the top ranks?
No, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. But I do think that the current Brethren were "called" primarily for their business acumen and administrative skills. And "educators"? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you referring to BKP, for instance? If so, he's hardly a "teacher" in the humble, salt-of-the-earth sense.
I promise to never use prick again. Now I'll call him a self-righteous arrogant stick with a metal point on it.
How's that? Is that too sexual for anyone?
I wouldn't worry about it, Harmony. For the most part, I think that those who were "offended" are merely putting on a display of incredibly immature Victorianism. I mean, at least one of the "offended" once said that he preferred to imagine that Heavenly Father impregnated Mary via artificial insemination rather than good, old fashioned coitus. It's therefore no surprise that a word like "prick" would send them scurrying for the smelling salts.
I am familiar with the passages about kicking against the pricks. And when Harm said what she said to Dan I did not equate it at all to the way she is now explaining it. I will take her at her word, but I sure never would have got there.
