DiscussMormonism.com

TAK wrote:Fascinating..
Your vast experience of a "guy in High School" allows you to compare Scratch and Gad to rapists..

That cog dis of yours must be working at warp speed..

Just trying to fit in with the prevailing logic of the thread.

The Nehor wrote:

TAK wrote:Fascinating..
Your vast experience of a "guy in High School" allows you to compare Scratch and Gad to rapists..

That cog dis of yours must be working at warp speed..

Just trying to fit in with the prevailing logic of the thread.

Really?
Who but you have compared others to that of a rapist?

TAK wrote:Really?
Who but you have compared others to that of a rapist?

He's just lashing out, Tak. He's mad about being called out on the fact that he is apparently incapable of writing posts that go beyond quick drive-bys and milquetoast yuk-yuks. Basically, he seems to be totally without substance. Think about it: he was almost unanimously voted the most substance-free apologist. That has to sting, at least a little.

antishock8 wrote:Is there a doctrinal difference between being "set apart" and "called" to something via a patriarchal blessing?

Interesting. The prophetic pronouncements of patriarchal blessings may play a role in this. Imagine if Louis Midgley, for example, were instructed in his blessing that he would use his intellectual prowess and mastery of language to defend the church from critical and anti-mormon attacks. Would that not imply a divine directive?

TAK wrote:

The Nehor wrote:Just trying to fit in with the prevailing logic of the thread.

Really?
Who but you have compared others to that of a rapist?

It seems about as logical as the ideas of this thread where premise is heaped on premise and then presented as a logical conclusion. In the same way that this Scratch and Gad speculate/insist that apologists are set apart I speculate/insist that they are rapists.

Mister Scratch wrote:

TAK wrote:Really?
Who but you have compared others to that of a rapist?

He's just lashing out, Tak. He's mad about being called out on the fact that he is apparently incapable of writing posts that go beyond quick drive-bys and milquetoast yuk-yuks. Basically, he seems to be totally without substance. Think about it: he was almost unanimously voted the most substance-free apologist. That has to sting, at least a little.

Yes...it hurts.....the PAIN!!!!

Oh, when are you going to get around to explaining how you admitting to lying to manipulate people wasn't you actually admitting that you were lying to manipulate people?

The Nehor wrote:It seems about as logical as the ideas of this thread where premise is heaped on premise and then presented as a logical conclusion. In the same way that this Scratch and Gad speculate/insist that apologists are set apart I speculate/insist that they are rapists.

Your Loony..
Why is it out of the realm of likely DCP was set apart when he assumed his role at FARMS? And if he was, does this throw your testamonkey in the crapper?

TAK wrote:

The Nehor wrote:It seems about as logical as the ideas of this thread where premise is heaped on premise and then presented as a logical conclusion. In the same way that this Scratch and Gad speculate/insist that apologists are set apart I speculate/insist that they are rapists.

Your Loony..
Why is it out of the realm of likely DCP was set apart when he assumed his role at FARMS? And if he was, does this throw your testamonkey in the crapper?

It's out of the realm of likely because there's no evidence for it, he denies it, and yet it's still discussed in tones of seriousness here as if it's plausible. No, my testimony has nothing to do with blessings, ordinations, or setting aparts that probably never happened given to people I've never met.

The Nehor wrote:
Oh, when are you going to get around to explaining how you admitting to lying to manipulate people wasn't you actually admitting that you were lying to manipulate people?

The Nehor: This is the exact quote: "I said that to you either in jest, or to manipulate you (or even more likely: both)." Where in there does the word "lie" appear? As far as I can see, there is no outright "admission" here to anything. It was a guess as to my motives behind a post that was written quite some time ago. Why don't you link to the original thread, so we can see the post in context? That way, I can give you a more accurate assessment of what I was thinking, way back when. Who knows--perhaps my recollections are wrong, and I really did mean, in all sincerity, that you are "one of the good ones"? Or, maybe you can at last show everyone what a huge liar I am? So, I'll wait patiently for you to supply the link. And for you to provide evidence for your so-called "substance and sincerity."

Mister Scratch wrote:

The Nehor wrote:
Oh, when are you going to get around to explaining how you admitting to lying to manipulate people wasn't you actually admitting that you were lying to manipulate people?

The Nehor: This is the exact quote: "I said that to you either in jest, or to manipulate you (or even more likely: both)." Where in there does the word "lie" appear? As far as I can see, there is no outright "admission" here to anything. It was a guess as to my motives behind a post that was written quite some time ago. Why don't you link to the original thread, so we can see the post in context? That way, I can give you a more accurate assessment of what I was thinking, way back when. Who knows--perhaps my recollections are wrong, and I really did mean, in all sincerity, that you are "one of the good ones"? Or, maybe you can at last show everyone what a huge liar I am? So, I'll wait patiently for you to supply the link. And for you to provide evidence for your so-called "substance and sincerity."

Sure:

Nehor---

I have to say, you have done a remarkably good job of defending your position, and I really have to tip my hat to you. You are without question one of "The Good Ones."

For context: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1879&p=40039&hilit=good+ones+nehor#p40039

Not only does it say I'm one of the good ones but that you say I did a remarkably good job of defending my position I'll also take that as evidence of substance and sincerity.

You're welcome. Now, was that a post a lie to manipulate me, a joke, or would you like to withdraw it as incorrect?