Daniel Peterson wrote:Sorry, Shades. Your position on this is simply ridiculous, impossible to take seriously. You do yourself no credit by persisting in its advocacy.
Have the Lord's mouthpieces consistently taught for over 170 years that Noah's flood covered the entire earth?
"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?"
You can continue to peddle your nonsense. Though it's manifestly intended to marginalize me and my colleagues, it just makes you look bad. Which, though I rather like you, is fine with me.
Daniel Peterson wrote:You can continue to peddle your nonsense. Though it's manifestly intended to marginalize me and my colleagues, it just makes you look bad. Which, though I rather like you, is fine with me.
It was never meant to marginalize you and your colleagues. It was only meant to understand you and your colleagues. Make heads or tails of what you were saying, so-to-speak.
"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?"
for what it's worth, Dr. Shades, the dichotomy has always resonated with me. I've never met a single person within the Church (or in the Chapel?) who behaves like the Mopologists do. I understand EAllusion's criticism, and I think he has a point, however grimly serious it may be, but on the other hand, I wonder if he understands how fruitless *any* study of the Mopologists would be, given how prone they are to equivocation, flip-flopping, denial, and outright lying. Perhaps that's where Dr. Shades's questions fall short? I.e., they are too direct? In my experience, you cannot ask and Internet Mormon/Mopologist: "Was there a global flood?" because they won't answer that question. They will find some way to change the subject, or to insist that this isn't actually LDS doctrine, or that it never has been LDS doctrine, etc.
Also: on kind of a sidenote, I was surprised that Pres. Monson was not characterized as an "Internet Mormon." While he's probably not as extreme as, say, juliann or Wade Englund, I think it's clear that most of the Twelve more or less *have* to be Internet Mormons.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:for what it's worth, Dr. Shades, the dichotomy has always resonated with me.
Wow, Shades. You've bagged a really important convert with this one.
No more fair-minded, sympathetic, reasonable, and downright credible observer of Mormonism and Mormon intellectual life exists anywhere on Planet Zarkon.
I noticed on the MADB thread you put up Shades quote out of context in a way that misleads about its intent. I understand how it can be an honest mistake if you are avoiding reading the chain of discussion that led to it. However, continuing to leave it up without correction and allowing others to be mislead would be an example of dishonesty.
No more fair-minded, sympathetic, reasonable, and downright credible observer of Mormonism and Mormon intellectual life exists anywhere on Planet Zarkon.
Ridiculous. Not to be taken seriously.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
I noticed on the MADB thread you put up Shades quote out of context in a way that misleads about its intent. I understand how it can be an honest mistake if you are avoiding reading the chain of discussion that led to it. However, continuing to leave it up without correction and allowing others to be mislead would be an example of dishonesty.
Thanks,
EA
*sigh*
(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.
Will somebody please get her smelling salts for harmony?
Ellusion wrote:I noticed on the MADB thread you put up Shades quote out of context in a way that misleads about its intent. I understand how it can be an honest mistake if you are avoiding reading the chain of discussion that led to it. However, continuing to leave it up without correction and allowing others to be mislead would be an example of dishonesty.
I'm going to be extremely busy tomorrow and then traveling without a computer from Saturday morning through Monday night, but you're certainly welcome to indicate how I'm misrepresenting Shades.
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, I believe I disagree.
Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm going to be extremely busy tomorrow and then traveling without a computer from Saturday morning through Monday night, but you're certainly welcome to indicate how I'm misrepresenting Shades.
I don't feel the need to issue corrections for you.
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, I believe I disagree.
The line of discussion is quite simple. If you want to boil it down it goes:
whyme: Dividing the LDS Church - an absolute truth* - into subgroups of belief is postmodern. Shades is being postmodern.
Shades: No. It's not postmodern just like dividing Mormonism - an absolute truth - into FLDS and LDS is not.
DCP: Omfg! So you're again saying Internet and Chapel are distinct religions like FLDS and LDS!
*I think this whole "absolute truth" qualifier is ill-thought in the first place, but I figured I'd include it.