Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:Not thinking the quote was misleading, nor commenting that it was misleading, Bagley didn't mention it. He had the entire letter and my quote.

Bagley missed it; we didn't. Either way, your game is up.

The "case" is the client's file that one takes to court; it involves everything outside the lawyer's personal purview.

You are certainly free to re-define language to suit your argument.

At least I don't use ellipses to mislead the original statement.

One of Lee's biographers, Samuel Nyal Henrie, who did not have the benefit of the Huntington letter, argues that Lee's confessions were tampered with because it contains facts Lee could not have possibly have known.

That could have been Lee (perhaps using hearsay from another who did know).

I am the first historian to have found the Huntington letter and used it to call into question the integrity of the Confessions, and Bagley has conceded to me that it is a letter he might have wanted to address.

Congratulations, but whatever "first" you accomplished was undone by your manipulating the letter to say something other than it did.

Had I included the material, it would have made my argument marginally stronger.

Nope. Had you put the jettisoned words back it, it would have decimated your argument; hence, the reason you kept them out.

I really think that is not necessary to ask FARMS for a retraction; particularly since my article has undergone rigorous scrutiny by experts. Flaws have been found (two typos on dates, for example; a typo on "first" when "second" should have been used, and things like that).

I don't care about the typos (although you sure make a big deal about them here); I care about your blatant manipulation of a quote to say something that was never intended.

Not a one -- not one -- has identified the supposed flaw you rely upon to charge me with professional dishonesty and, in Scratch's case, grounds for a reason to contact my stake president.

I could care less about contacting your SP, but I think this was (and remains) a major defect in your article.

Anonymously, I might add.

One-note wonder Bob strikes again!

Beating up on living people with reputations to defend behind the essential equivalence of a hooded mask.

One-note wonder Bob strikes again!
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:I think in your case, your threat to expose me to my stake president for so-called dishonesty in academic publications was plainly over the top and certainly libel coupled with an extortive threat. I consider that a pretty serious breach of ethics, and certainly as an anonymous poster, a demonstrable lack of integrity.

You have no need to fear Mr. Scratch's reporting you; you should really fear the SCMC, your favorite "clipping service."

I have children who know I post here.

Do they visit here?

I like coming on this Board to learn from opposing points of views and maybe even learn new facts or theories.

You've said horrible things about this bb and its participants in the past, so this statement really surprises me.

Finally, there is no drooling going on here when I step in to defend Dr. Peterson to point out that Dr. Quinn outed himself publicly to his colleagues many years before you charge Dr. Peterson of outing him with gossip. I was there. I saw it first hand.

Sure ya did, but, of course, no one else has ever claimed to have seen the same thing. How convenient.

You can call me a liar, but I sign my posts with my name and you do not.

One-note wonder Bob strikes again!
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Who is this Guy? Pre-Apocalrock Me...Hear it Wade!

Post by _Nightlion »

James Muir wrote:
Gazelam wrote:A great talk on the subject of identifying the Spirit of the Lord and the Holy Ghost

http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6028


Woke up today about 5:30 and saw this and finished it at 7:30. I dozed off more than a couple of times. I did not have wisdom in my youth that I have today. I grew up in the rising years of Steven Covey. Now I see why he was so popular and what all the clamour after him was about.

Steven Covey was and is still I guess a flatterer. He tells people what they would most like to believe and gets them to believe it. He deigns the people worthy. He organizes their thinking. He smoothes off all the nagging barbs of conscience for people to get on with their life in confidence. He is a liar. He is not just a big liar. He is a Satan.

A Satan is anyone who wilfully seeks to prevent the will of the Father. Christ rebuked Peter when he tempted Christ to not suffer. He called him Satan. What motivates a man to be a Satan. He wants to be loved and praised and adored and even worshipped. Steven Covey pretty much got what he was after, didn't he?

In the gut of all Mormons they know for certain that they are not Book of Mormon calibre saints. This crap dumpster Covey slinks onto the scene to elucidate a cover story that all LDS people are sooooooo chosen, soooooooo blessed, sooooo covenant, and sooooooooooooooooo good, that they are immersed in the Holy Ghost to the point that they just fail to realize it as a fish would be the last to discover water.

So he tells them all....people, just swim in it and enjoy, yes, enjoy that the Holy Ghost is guiding you constantly, and be the best you can beeeeeeeeeeee. Awwwwww that feels so good not to wonder if I am worthy or not any more. Thank you Satan, errr, I mean Steve.

All the overachievers blitz into hyper-drive self righteousness. They are free to guide themselves because it is only the obvious choosing of a better more disciplined life that needs to be practiced. They do not have to take off time from work, play, or any of their selfish pursuits so long as they just do the best they can at everything including all their church assignments.

He gave them a charter to follow their pride and vaunting self will. He put God in a box and stashed that box under the full control of the conscience of the people. Our conscience is not the Holy Ghost folks. It is our conscience. Our conscience has no power. It has no sanctifying power. It has no forgiveness. It has no revelation that we don't already know. It can only remind us. It is us and cannot be God.

This is the same Satan in the hearts of all LDS leaders who strive to inspire a people in their sins. They fail to detect or willfully ignore what is tragically wrong and debilitating in LDS practice. Because the bar is not even set low. The bar has been jettisoned that there remains no bar at all to hinder them in their lustful pursuits and passions. Tempered with excellence all these lusts and passions, yes tempered in disciplined excellence lest there be any accusations. Satan is chief of all accusations and is sure to make himself free of any. How excellent the glory of the Chaldees the Wonders of Babylon, the best of this world.

Do not follow this stupification and searing of conscience. Flatter not yourself and do not think you can sanctify yourself as if you were your own God. Do not become a Satan.


Finally, someone I see eye to eye with. Is me in history me today? Can I not agree with that fellow and rejoice?
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end

Post by _Drifting »

mms,

In response to the OP;

It is odd is it not? That the places and sources you should go to for answers to questions are the places and sources that are unable to give you answers to questions.

Apologetics, Chuch defenders, Most Bishops etc when faced with troubling questions try to get you to ask a different question rather than answer the one you have already asked.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
User avatar
High Spy
Prophet
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:26 pm
Location: Up in the sky, HI 🌺
Contact:

Re: Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end

Post by High Spy »

_mentalgymnast wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:47 pm
But I was questioning that (the Spirit) because of a confusion about the distinction between the "warm fuzzies" and the feelings of the Spirit. I had recently discovered the "Heartsell" method of Bonneville Communications and used it as an example of why I was confused about identifying the Spirit.

Well, as you might imagine, I was immediately attacked by the very people I thought would be interested in reaching out to me. They said I was a fraud, a troll (didn't know what that was at the time), an anti posing as a concerned HP, etc. They went nuts on me...

So here I sit considering how to proceed. I talked to my Bishop (with whom I am pretty close). He knew nothing about any of the issues I am concerned with and basically said that he has never looked at the issues, because he does not think he could "handle it." That was helpful :) He is a great guy, though, and his heart is clearly in the right place.

Regards,
MG
Heart is a terrible translation of the Hebrew word LEVAV and isn't all about the warm fuzzies that don't accompany a bear hug, as explained in an embedded video found here in context of a great post by Enoch. 8-)
Post Reply