DiscussMormonism.com

rcrocket wrote:

the road to hana wrote:

rcrocket wrote:You just don't get it do you? You justify your mean-spirited, defamatory and hypocritical posts on the basis of your anonymity? Do you know the definition of sociopathy?

Someone who fudges his online resume and then lies about it?

Huh? What the hell are you talking about it? [Pretty easy to trash somebody's professional status anonymously isn't it? Such character you display.]

rcrocket

Your memory isn't that faulty. You had represented yourself, on the bio on your law firm's website, as having graduated summa cum laude from BYU, and when I asked you about it shortly after you began posting on (the previous version of) this board, you changed it.

Here's where I feel your appeals for non-anonymous posting are disingenuous. You're clearly outraged about internet stalking, but think anyone who posts anonymously is a coward. But here's how easy it is to get in real life information on a poster once they start using their real name, or offering it anywhere online. In your case, all it took was a few clicks to find your law firm's website, and your profile on it, including biography, photograph and office contact information. A few more clicks, and I can see that you gave $1000 to Bill Richardson's presidential campaign, and find your home address (all of which is readily available to the public online). I can see that your wife contributed to George W. Bush in the past, see her name, both your ages, the fact that you use two different middle names, and the names of your children. Mapquest will even give directions to your house. I can see what year your house was built, how many bedrooms and bathrooms it has, and how much it is appraised for. All of this is completely accessible to the public.

And I don't even care. But someone else who might could cause difficulty for you or your family, which is something you're already complaining about on this board, all the while criticizing someone else who chooses to post anonymously.

rcrocket wrote: You can pick what you want to believe no matter how frivolous, irresponsible and anonymous? There is no discrimination of evidence in your mind except, of course, if denigrates the faith of your fathers and those who sacrificed their all the bring you to this point in your life.

Uh, Bob, you wouldn't be here talking about Mormonism today if some of your ancestors hadn't done exactly that.

I guess I am guilty of needling superhuge egos. Runtu just is inserting himself in middle of my attempt to fend off the attacks of my personal stalker.

You keep repeating this lie, this baseless accusation. Do you think that if you repeat it often enough it will "stick", despite the fact that there's no evidence supporting your malicious slander?

So let's see it, Bob. What is your evidence upon which you base this accusation? Certainly, as a lawyer and someone so opposed to baseless, malicious slander, you wouldn't make such an accusation without one tiny shred of evidence, would you?

Oh, let me guess. You already posted your "evidence", which was that I said your wife laid back and thought of England seven times to have sex with you.

That reminds me, if someone had his calling and election made sure would he have to worry about angels taking notes?

note: this is not a post about rcrocket. It is a post about 2nd annointings and behavior--the topic of this thread.

Hmmm, good point. But perhaps the angels still keep notes to keep track of how long the anointed one will have to pay for his own sins with his own suffering, rather than rely on the suffering of Jesus. :O

Before Bob derailed me with his malicious slander, an interesting thought occurred to me in regards to this topic. Living in EV country, it always appeared to me that one of the more significant differences between Mormonism and EVism is that EVs have a "guarantee" that they will be in heaven. That's the entire basis of the faith, that the moment of salvation occurs when one accepts JC as one's savior. This contrasted Mormonism, in which members had to work hard their entire lives without that assurance. As I always felt inadequate as a Mormon, (for example, I wasn't very good at missionary work), I felt somewhat fearful and depressed that I still wasn't good enough for God. I remember dreaming, once, that the second coming had arrived, and thousands of us were packed in the Marriott Center, listening to the "list" being called out of those who "made it". At this point, of course, I was a faithful believer, doing my utmost to please God. I remember waiting, holding my breath, in fear and anxiety, uncertain that I had "made it". I did hear my name in the dream and my relief and joy was overwhelming.

In a way, Mormons were proud of this difference between them and the EVs, and almost seemed to disdain the idea that someone could "know" they were saved like the EVs claim. It seemed to give license to all sorts of bad behavior without consequence.

And yet, having one's calling and election made sure is the same idea - an assurance of having "made it". So clearly Mormons - like I did - crave this assurance, otherwise they wouldn't have thought of the idea in the first place. It's just limited to a very small number of people. It seems somewhat cruel to the rest, who, like me, often worry about being good enough for God.

Because they are intelligent, smart, reasonable people who know their stuff and can debate well.

(they can pay me later!)

Will pay pal do? ;)

I think bob goes after runtu for the same reason many MADdites do, as well. He was once an apologist himself. As an apologist, he displayed the same traits he does now - he's intelligent, reasonable, and sincere. As an apologist, he repeatedly asked for decent behavior in interactions between believer and exbeliever, and tried to model that behavior himself. He was lauded and praised by other believers for this behavior. So for him to turn traitor and go to the other side felt like a personal betrayal as well. And the fact that he still shows himself to be intelligent, reasonable, and sincere irritates them no end. So they do their best to attack his character. Often they attack him for 'hypocrisy' in that he remains active in the LDS church. What is bizarre about their focus on this is that the fact that he must remain active in the LDS church in order to maintain marital harmony demonstrates the controlling nature of the LDS church and its believers in the first place.

As for me, I think I just bug bob because I keep demonstrating the weak nature of the sources he uses to bolster his belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For example, he kept referring to a text by Cyrus Gordon which supposedly gave great evidence supporting certain Book of Mormon claims. It's an old text that not many people are familiar with, so I actually went out of my way to buy a used copy and read it. It's laughable. He later had to admit that other archaeologists view Gordon's book as poor scholarship as well. But he, himself, Bob, still thinks it's valid. And he's trumpeted the C. Ray article - again, an old text without easy access - as offering solid evidence of the horse in the Book of Mormon time period. So I finally was able to read the Ray article, thanks to a couple of posters who scanned it and shared it, which allowed me to follow up on details. It turned out to be an example of earlier archaeologists simply making mistakes which were corrected by later archaeologists. Add to this the fact that I repeatedly point out that his main "contribution" to this site is to criticize anonymity, and I'm sure it's all galling to him. So he's just following the example of his Mormon heritage, and making up a lie to slander a critic who galls them. Heck, if early LDS felt justified lying and calling Martha Brotherton a whore in their newspaper, then I'm sure he feels justified lying and calling me a "stalker".

Oh, and of course, I called him a misogynist and made a bad joke about his wife laying back and thinking of England so she could have sex with a misogynist.

Mr. Crocket have you been 2nd Anointed?

I am trying to explain your blatant self-righteousness.

Beastie, you bug Crock because you're female and you keep besting him in discussions.

Beastie, you bug Crock because you're female and you keep besting him in discussions.

Yes, there's that, too. While I felt compelled to defend myself against his scurrilous charge (a ridiculous charge no person who knows me would entertain for an instant), he really is not worth the bother.

Runtu wrote:

asbestosman wrote:

beastie wrote:You do realize that Jesus is watching you lie, don't you? And angels are taking notes? And this will all be played out on some big movie screen in the sky one day?

That reminds me, if someone had his calling and election made sure would he have to worry about angels taking notes?

note: this is not a post about rcrocket. It is a post about 2nd annointings and behavior--the topic of this thread.

I think it must mean that the angels cut you loose because you've already "made" it.

This brings up another question.

If you are already exalted, does Satan still have power to tempt you? If so, why?

Runtu wrote:

rcrocket wrote:Make sure that you continue, like Beastie, to secure your little self-made victories along the path of disingenuity and denial of the Cross.

Huh?

Yes, what does this mean? Denial of the Cross? The Cross of Jesus, Joseph or Crockett? The cross town bus? Hot-Cross buns?