ToGo wrote:Oaks puts it succinctly, "We must not lie. I know of no category of justified lies."
Oaks is a dummy who obviously hasn't spent any time at the MADhouse. According to the MADites, there are two categories of justified lies: lying to Nazis to hide Jews and lying about polygamy to avoid the consequences - the two being roughly morally equivalent.
I'm afraid Oaks is the kind of fundamentalist, black-and-white thinker who is at risk of losing his testimony should he ever discover the truth about Joseph Smith. (Also, it's very strange that Oaks appears to be unaware of Joseph's dishonesty with respect to polygamy, seeing as how the Church has consistently been up front about it, mentioning it in its manuals and magazines - from the Friend on up.)
"Christian anti-Mormons are no different than that wonderful old man down the street who turns out to be a child molester." - Obiwan, nutjob Mormon apologist - Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:25 pm
LOL. Over at my Malevolent Stalker's board, Paul "I love everybody!" Osborne, who began the evening by denouncing Hugh Nibley as (among other things) a liar, is now denouncing Elder Cook as a liar in very crude language while exhorting the youth of the Church to commit certain specific sexual acts in defiance of Church teachings.
"I love everyone!" Mr. Osborne revealed on this board just a few days ago. "I love all of God's children, those whom I have met and those who I have not met, and those whom I hardly know."
He is, he says, being subjected to a lynch-mob mentality here, virtual crucifixion, and is almost being burned at the stake.
I'm not making this up.
Do not attack a person who is generally a very nice and love filled follower of Christ. Paul O has grown and will continue to grow within the love of Christ. He takes the admonition of his savior seriously to "love everyone".
Shame on DCP for roundly mocking Paul for loving his neighbor. What kind of person says these things? Is loving everybody a bad thing? I find it sad that DCP would condemn Paul for this unforgivable sin of unconditional love. For shame. "I am not making this up."
I like how DCP got all butt-hurt when ToGo called him "Mr. Peterson," and in response came up with the very clever and very funny idea to call ToGo "Prof. Dr. ToGo."
Since I know Dan is reading every single post made in this thread (and probably quite a few others), let me reiterate that I like DCP - I really do (hell, even became a fan of him on Facebook) - but there are times when I really, really sympathize with the folks who don't think the world of him.
"Christian anti-Mormons are no different than that wonderful old man down the street who turns out to be a child molester." - Obiwan, nutjob Mormon apologist - Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:25 pm
Dwight Frye wrote:I like how DCP got all butt-hurt when ToGo called him "Mr. Peterson," and in response came up with the very clever and very funny idea to call ToGo "Prof. Dr. ToGo."
Since I know Dan is reading every single post made in this thread (and probably quite a few others), let me reiterate that I like DCP - I really do (hell, even became a fan of him on Facebook) - but there are times when I really, really sympathize with the folks who don't think the world of him.
Nice of him to insult the intelligence of the person, eh?
If nothing else, Mormons should be very, very concerned that General Authorities fly First Class.
"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?"
LOL. Over at my Malevolent Stalker's board, Paul "I love everybody!" Osborne, who began the evening by denouncing Hugh Nibley as (among other things) a liar, is now denouncing Elder Cook as a liar in very crude language while exhorting the youth of the Church to commit certain specific sexual acts in defiance of Church teachings.
Is Daniel saying that it's not possible to love someone and determine that they are a liar?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
I brought this up in a thread some months ago, but decided against doing a thread about it. I couldn't find anywhere on the Net that this was confirmed by Jagger. Not even a passing reference. I even thought of emailing him, but dropped that idea too. I've since concluded that Cook is Flying High with Paul Dunn.
Do not come on here and make unsubstantiated accusations. This is a warning and suggest you not do it again.
I think it is Cook who should be called to substantiate his story. He's telling millions (?) of Mormons about the depravity of Jagger, and whether it's true of not is beside the point. The point is whether he's telling the full truth about his encounter and what was said.
Not all of Dunn's statements were lies, but infamous exaggerations, until he was exposed after some thorough journalistic work by Lynn Packer, a Mormon journalist.
When confronted with evidence that several of his stories were either completely falsified or substantially embellished, Dunn admitted that the stories were not completely true, yet continued to defend his use of the stories: "I haven't purposely tried to embellish or rewrite history. I've tried to illustrate points that would create interest. [I was] simply putting history in little finer packages." Dunn compared his stories to the parables of Jesus—although they were not true stories, they were nevertheless valuable means of teaching gospel principles.
This thread enticed me to look at Sunday School apology board. I was a little puzzled that nobody dared to actually question the story. Some reasons to doubt the story appear on this board. The message I hear in the story is that if you doubt the truth of the Book of Mormon you are probably encouraging participation in evil behaviour, so believe in the Book of Mormon. I doubt a Jaggar or Jaggar pretender was interested in persuing that discussion. A long two hours either way.
I found different views on the Stones interesting. A few people think there is a link between sex drugs and rock and roll. I was more puzzled by views that saw the Stones as mediocre rock and roll band. No body volunteered a really good rock and roll band so I was left wondering. Logically they should be quite old fashioned I suppose.