DiscussMormonism.com

So we see here quite often how many supposed high profile jewish/hebrew scholar and rabbi people that Mr Peterson hangs with.

Question:Does he know of any of these folks who would support the LDS claim to the requirement or practice of temple marriage ceremonies in ancient jewish/hebrew culture?

Just another one of those logical, rasonable thought/question I get when he does his "insecurity boasting" here!

Probably get the Millett on this one too!

Joey wrote:So we see here quite often how many supposed high profile jewish/hebrew scholar and rabbi people that Mr Peterson hangs with.

Question:Does he know of any of these folks who would support the LDS claim to the requirement or practice of temple marriage ceremonies in ancient jewish/hebrew culture?

None spring to mind, although I can name a few that have expressed praise for the Latter-day Saint temples and their significance. I'm wondering why one would expect one person of faith to "support" a unique tenet of another faith, and what this could possibly have to do with Dan Peterson's associations with them?

Joey wrote:Just another one of those logical, rasonable thought/question I get when he does his "insecurity boasting" here!

Probably get the Millett on this one too!

There you go with that "the Millett" stuff again. What is that?

Don't answer the question someone asks you. Answer the question that someone should have asked.

I am sure I just kind of mangled it, but...maybe you get the idea. The simpletons are always asking the wrong questions, so when we do, the missionaries should answer the question we simpletons should have asked, if we were not such simpletons.

That is what Millet taught some soon-to-be missionaries. This instruction can be accessed online. We, or a lot of us, anyway have seen it and find it typical of Mormon apologetics, in general.

Does that help you out?

gramps wrote:

Don't answer the question someone asks you. Answer the question that someone should have asked.

I am sure I just kind of mangled it, but...maybe you get the idea. The simpletons are always asking the wrong questions, so when we do, the missionaries should answer the question we simpletons should have asked, if we were not such simpletons.

That is what Millet taught some soon-to-be missionaries. This instruction can be accessed online. We, or a lot of us, anyway have seen it and find it typical of Mormon apologetics, in general.

Does that help you out?

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I hope you recognize that this is a fallacious argumentative technique that is not restricted to Mormons or apologists on any discussion board.

I also don't like the set in the OP's question either. It's a rather meaningless question ("Do you know any Buddhists that accept exclusively Muslim ideologies? You don't?!?"), but any attempt to explain that could potentially qualify as "the Millet" once the OP gets his hands on it.

maklelan wrote:
None spring to mind, although I can name a few that have expressed praise for the Latter-day Saint temples and their significance.

CFR Please name and reference a few and what they claimed was the significance about the LDS temples.

I'm wondering why one would expect one person of faith to "support" a unique tenet of another faith, and what this could possibly have to do with Dan Peterson's associations with them?

Well, If temple marriages are required by scripture - where is it? If they are required by revelation - where is that? Since neither scripture nor revelation have required temple marriages, I assume those boys on bikes don't lie when they say it was a "restored principle"! If it was restored, who better to know and tell about it's origin than jewish/hebrew scholars - like the ones Dan (or you) hang with.

Challenge: Can you respond without a Millett!

gramps wrote:I am sure I just kind of mangled it, but...maybe you get the idea. The simpletons are always asking the wrong questions, so when we do, the missionaries should answer the question we simpletons should have asked, if we were not such simpletons.

The solution is to stop being a simpleton.

millet, I thought it must be some kind of modified mullet

Joey wrote:CFR Please name and reference a few and what they claimed was the significance about the LDS temples.

Here's a nice, brief YouTube video that includes two eminent scholars (Frank Moore Cross and the late Krister Stendahl, both of Harvard University) who see real significance in the LDS temple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_-TQivCx8

Cross and Stendahl are not just reputable scholars. In their respectivefields, they are enormous names. (For what it's worth, Stendahl was both the dean of Harvard Divinity School and the Lutheran bishop of Stockholm, Sweden -- in effect, the head of the Swedish state church).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Moore_Cross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl

The Nehor wrote:

gramps wrote:I am sure I just kind of mangled it, but...maybe you get the idea. The simpletons are always asking the wrong questions, so when we do, the missionaries should answer the question we simpletons should have asked, if we were not such simpletons.

The solution is to stop being a simpleton.

If there were no longer any simpletons, who would the church baptize?

Millet was teaching the strategy to the missionaries going out in to the field, as you well know. That would seriously make a dent in Mormons' claim to being one of the fastest growing religions, wouldn't it?

RockSlider wrote:millet, I thought it must be some kind of modified mullet

Now, if Millet would only get some hair so that he could have a mullet.