Are we enemies?

[_rcrocket]

Excuse me, but you do not know anything about her knowledge or character other than a few posts here. Who are you to say she knows "little of this matter"? Are you suggesting that one cannot take the position that she does and be a faithful member? Even if that were true, it would not be hypocritical to believe the things she can and reject that which she can't.

Jesus called people hypocrites because he knew their hearts. You don't.

Plutarch and Harmony have a history, Runtu, which I'm sure Harmony will address. Plutarch seems to think that Harmony is the devil incarnated. LOL

At any rate, you're a good guy for defending her honor...and I agree with you! ;)

I believe the phrase is "devil incarnate."

No, I don't think anybody is the devil incarnate, least of all Harmony.

But, it seems to me that those on this particular board who hold themselves out at their local levels as active Latter-day Saints, but whom persist in attacking on an anonymous basis the Church and its leaders are, well, just plain hypocritical. The anonymity provided by the Internet is no excuse.

I don't have to be an NFL quarterback to critique Philip Rivers, nor to I have to know a person's heart to condemn them as hypocritical, nor do I have be completely free of hypocrisy myself. But, the objective facts speak for themselves as to Harmony and others on this board.

Such rank cowardice one exhibits to make anonymous posts on any topic of real significance involving real and known people. Do you think people discount your cowardice merely because this is the internet? Why can’t you reveal your real names and ward affiliations? What is wrong with fearing expulsion from the Lord’s true church?

And, indeed, Harmony is the lightest of lightweights, and I speak of her posts and not of her as a person. Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

[_Yoda]

Such rank cowardice one exhibits to make anonymous posts on any topic of real significance involving real and known people. Do you think people discount your cowardice merely because this is the internet? Why can’t you reveal your real names and ward affiliations? What is wrong with fearing expulsion from the Lord’s true church?

Why do you post with an anonymous name? Just curious.

[_Runtu]

I believe the phrase is "devil incarnate."

No, I don't think anybody is the devil incarnate, least of all Harmony.

But, it seems to me that those on this particular board who hold themselves out at their local levels as active Latter-day Saints, but whom persist in attacking on an anonymous basis the Church and its leaders are, well, just plain hypocritical. The anonymity provided by the Internet is no excuse.

I don't have to be an NFL quarterback to critique Philip Rivers, nor to I have to know a person's heart to condemn them as hypocritical, nor do I have be completely free of hypocrisy myself. But, the objective facts speak for themselves as to Harmony and others on this board.

Such rank cowardice one exhibits to make anonymous posts on any topic of real significance involving real and known people. Do you think people discount your cowardice merely because this is the internet? Why can’t you reveal your real names and ward affiliations? What is wrong with fearing expulsion from the Lord’s true church?

And, indeed, Harmony is the lightest of lightweights, and I speak of her posts and not of her as a person. Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

I don't claim to be an active member of the church. True, I officially hold a calling, but my bishop (and apparently everyone in ward council) knows of my beliefs. Is it hypocritical of me to not use my real name? I had never thought of it that way. I don't care if I get expelled from the church. Maybe they'd quit treating me like the ward "project."

I figure that we all have to find our way through life. Harmony is just doing what my bishop (and my wife and my father) counseled me to do: hold onto the things she can believe in and discard the rest. Maybe they're hypocrites, too.

[_rcrocket]

Such rank cowardice one exhibits to make anonymous posts on any topic of real significance involving real and known people. Do you think people discount your cowardice merely because this is the internet? Why can’t you reveal your real names and ward affiliations? What is wrong with fearing expulsion from the Lord’s true church?

Why do you post with an anonymous name? Just curious.

I have stated my true name many times on this board and its predecessor.

http://www.lw.com/attorney/attorneysear ... ttno=00975

I use my real name on FAIR (although I am a light poster). I don't use my real name in every post here because of the occasional threat I have received to report my positions to my stake president or my employer (I am self-employed). I find several folks on this board to be extremely unsavory characters. But it is fun nonetheless to be right all the time.

P

[_harmony]

And, indeed, Harmony is the lightest of lightweights, and I speak of her posts and not of her as a person.

And yet you still persist in sitting in judgment, as if your opinion really counts. When will you realize that your stewardship does not include me, never has, never will... and that much as you would like to, you have no say in my eternal salvation? If I was to come to your ward, you could not forbid me to take the sacrament. If I was to sit across the aisle from you in the temple, you could not protest. And why not? Because you have no standing, no authority, no stewardship. And it galls you no end.

Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears. Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair. That's rehensible. Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly. That's also rehensible. Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

[_Yoda]

I don't use my real name in every post here because of the occasional threat I have received to report my positions to my stake president or my employer (I am self-employed).

So...let me get this straight. You are justified in using a pseudonym for professional/personal reasons, but the rest of us aren't? Give me a break!

[_harmony]

But it is fun nonetheless to be right all the time.

You're serious. That's the hilarious part. You're really serious. And you actually believe this. That is downright scary.

[_rcrocket]

And yet you still persist in sitting in judgment, as if your opinion really counts. When will you realize that your stewardship does not include me, never has, never will... and that much as you would like to, you have no say in my eternal salvation? If I was to come to your ward, you could not forbid me to take the sacrament. If I was to sit across the aisle from you in the temple, you could not protest. And why not? Because you have no standing, no authority, no stewardship. And it galls you no end.

I really don't have a clue what you're talking about, although you have certainly made this irrelevant point before.

Your posts are what they are. I judge your posts. As you judge mine. There is nothing else to judge. I have no stewardship over you.

The fact that you post gives me the right to comment.

Much moreso than you do, it appears. Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair. That's rehensible. Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly. That's also rehensible. Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

Now, look folks, here we are talking about Fanny Alger. Yet, do we read any substance whatsoever? We have none! How can one respond to such empty-headed vagaries?

P

[_rcrocket]

But it is fun nonetheless to be right all the time.

You're serious. That's the hilarious part. You're really serious. And you actually believe this. That is downright scary.

Oh, please. I am rarely right. That is the beauty of saying that I am right all the time.

[_harmony]

Much moreso than you do, it appears. Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair. That's rehensible. Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly. That's also rehensible. Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

Now, look folks, here we are talking about Fanny Alger. Yet, do we read any substance whatsoever? We have none! How can one respond to such empty-headed vagaries?

P

So start a thread about Fanny, if you're proposing that it was not the dirty little affair that Oliver called it. This thread is not about Fanny, and she definitely deserves her own thread.