The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Buffalo]

Then, when he realized he wasn't talking to an anti and didn't need to filter everything said through the mopologist hate machine, he responded to the exact same post this way:

I am inclined to agree. Though the Church is a hospital for the sick rather than a resort for the cured.

We are all at different paths on the road to Salvation/Exaltation.

I think a certain amount of parallax is going to be unavoidable.

As stated in my earlier response to Saints Alive, this contradicts my own experience. I have never lacked for people with whom to have reasonable and learned conversations about the temple material.

I agree whole-heartedly.

And yet this is also an admission that you cannot speak authoritatively for the membership as a whole. Your experience (and mine for that matter) is by definition both subjective and anecdotal. Just because things are a certain way for us does not mean they are that way for the whole.

I'm not quite sure I agree. I will concede that the system is balanced to rely upon confirmation from the Spirit- but I'm not convinced that we are left to wander without guidance as your post seems to imply.

Too many people seem to want to take the Endowment as a "stand-alone" ordinance.

On the contrary, the Temple Ordinances are inexplicably intertwined with the doctrine and teachings of the Church as a whole, and must be evaluated and understood in that context... or not at all.

Notice the difference. For mopologists it seems to be all about attack the outsiders, defend the insiders. Substance is irrelevant.

[_Buffalo]

Which meant they will not change in the grave.

Unfortunately, I don't have my library available right now, but the rest of the quote is the important part, where Joseph said that their mothers would raise them to their full stature. (Besides, a cubit (18") is quite a bit. A child reaches 50% of his full, adult height by the times he's two years old We're actually born at about 15% of that height, anyway), so not growing a cubit isn't all that limiting.

Lehi

LeSellers responding to Joseph Smith's sermon about babies reining forever on thrones. I wonder if he's being dishonest or if he's so brainwashed that his brain actually rearranges the quote for him until it fits current doctrinal standards.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore. :D

sig worthy

+1

[_Darth J]

I dunno. While Moroni did have all those decades after the last battle to work with, I don't see him carrying the plates from Italy to NY in that time. No report of a ship or walking on water either. The civilization of the Roman Empire or any of it's sub-cultures don't seem to be a good match. You might be able to come up with a good explaination for the disappearance of the Legio Nona Hispana though.

Just sayin'.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[_Shulem]

I dunno. While Moroni did have all those decades after the last battle to work with, I don't see him carrying the plates from Italy to NY in that time. No report of a ship or walking on water either. The civilization of the Roman Empire or any of it's sub-cultures don't seem to be a good match. You might be able to come up with a good explaination for the disappearance of the Legio Nona Hispana though.

Just sayin'.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

A missing roll is not proof that it exists.

Paul O

[_kamenraider]

From ldsfaqs in a thread about the MMM on the MDD board ( LINK ) :

Your "research" is anti-mormon based, thus an absolute LIE.

I guess as soon as ldsfaqs decides that research is "anti-mormon based," he knows it's a "LIE."

edit: I don't mean by this to endorse the idea of stevedallas, that ldsfaqs was responding to, that "BY ordered the killings." Brigham Young would have to have been pretty stupid to have issued an order like that. I was just surprised at how ldsfaqs worded his response. I was also surprised and not a little confused by the way ldsfaqs declared that "The early denials of Polygamy were actually true. Only the 'sealing ordinance' was practiced at first, not Polygamy. Polygamy didn't start until Utah."

[_Buffalo]

Actually the Bible does teach about homosexual relationships. It was a stoning offence. Further there was no legal recognition of homosexual("committed relationship") marriage in ancient Jewish, Christian, or Roman/Greek paganism

In the old testament, gay sex is an abomination. So is eating shellfish.

New Testament Christians had no concept of "legal marriage." They just shacked up together, like Brad and Angelina. Not sure where he's getting his information.

[_3sheets2thewind]

According to "jo" only an anti-mormon would believe Elder Packer condoned violence against a homosexual, if the homosexual "enticed" a person.

From your anti-LDS pov I can see where you could come to the conclusion you have. From my pov I believe that Elder Packer was "not omitting it" because he was telling us the details of the event which had been recounted to him while he was serving his mission. Part of that event included the fact that the missionary had punched out his companion. Now, if Elder Packer had left that part of the story out, and an anti-LDS later dug up the complete story of that incident, I have no doubt that the anti would then have gladly pointed out how Elder Packer had "omitted" the violence. Elder Packer chose to include this aspect rather than "omit" it from the story. In other words, the "omitting" has nothing to do with advocating or condoning the violence; he was merely telling us what had transpired. To me he made that clear by first stating that he did NOT recommend that type of action.

Regards,

jo

here is what Elder Packer said:

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it.

So only an anti-mormon would read the last sentence "I am not recommending, but not omitting" to mean a person can hit a homosexual.

And presumably a LD Saint would read the last sentence as "I am not omitting the hitting part because you all need that bit of information. I am only mentioning the hitting, to cover my rear-end for when the anti's get a hold of the story. So just to be the hitting part I am not omitting is just to add more detail to the story and should be in no way construed that I am not omitting hitting a person."

[_gramps]

mfbukowski wrote:

One cannot believe in a correspondence theory of truth and believe that personal revelation is "true". That is the bottom line that Rob does not quite understand. Yet James' Pragmatism is compatible with any religious view, especially one which includes personal religious experience. Rob does not understand how such a theory of truth can be compatible with religion- and yet it is totally clear if you understand James view of religious experience.

It's ironic because one of the most quoted books the atheists use around here is "Fear of Knowledge" by Boghossian- which uses the exact theory of truth Rob accepts- which ultimate goes back to Aristotle. It is ironic that that entire book is essentially an attack on religion - which he also tacitly equates with what he terms "equal validity". The book opens with an argument against the rationality of religious thought- and ironically uses the same sorts of arguments Rob uses here against me! And yet Rob then says that his theory of truth is incompatible with Mormonism- unfortunately it is also incompatible with religion in general!

What Rob raises as an objection - using the correspondence theory of truth - is precisely what legacy we have from Aristotle and Plato in Neoplatonism. I am writing a fairly lengthy rebuttal right now to Boghossian, so I am particularly aware of these arguments right now.

The MAD philosopher-in-residence is now writing a paper (isn't he always?) to rebut Boghossian, and I am, for one, very interested in reading that. Mr. Bukowski, will you share that paper with us when you have finished it? Or let us know where it is to be published?

Thanking you in advance. ;)

[_Imnotwashingmypirate]

Trouble yourself no longer with things that don't concern you.

How can something not concern you and trouble you at the same time?

That's kind of like saying, "Stop reading illegible stuff."

Um to me, that makes complete sense. It doesn't say trouble yourself and not concern you at the same time. It says don't trouble yourself with things that don't concern you. Or in other words, mind your own bloody business.