juliann lobs another water balloon at Beastie

[_Runtu]

like the fact that postmodernist Ben is even claiming that the divinity of JC isn't a foundational claim of the LDS church.

beastie, I only had a quick read of the link you gave. Is Ben's claim in that linked thread?

I must say that the thread on ZLMB is much more lucid than the one on MAD.

[_Sam Harris]

Thanks for defending me, refuge, but technically I don't know if I'm banned. I was definitely banned once due to Juliann's "intervention", but they invited me back after about eight months when Brant Gardner stated that he missed the Book of Mormon discussions we used to have. I returned, only to be, once again, Juliann's target. I could not tolerate the moderating style at FAIR, which allowed believers like Juliann great latitude in being snide, evasive, diversionary, and plain ugly to exbelievers and doubters, but would censor critics without any solid justification. So I left the second time of my own will and volition.

Having said that, I don't doubt my screen name has since been banned, due to the fact that shortly after I left, FAIR announced they would ban posters who criticized FAIR on other boards. I have been a very vocal critic of FAIR. But I don't know because I disabled my account and couldn't try to log on even if I wanted to.

Juliann is a coward because she won't even respond to me on Z, where the mods are friendly to her. She claims it's because she doesn't have time to devote to two boards, but all she has to do is to copy and paste her responses on the Z thread. I believe she doesn't want to respond there because then it will be clear to any reader how much she is ignoring...

like the fact that postmodernist Ben is even claiming that the divinity of JC isn't a foundational claim of the LDS church.

I stopped posting for the same reasons you did, though I thought you had been banned. My mistake. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you were. I too grew disgusted at how nasty the TBMs on there could be, and yet anyone else had to mind their P's and Q's. I wasn't moderated much, if at all, but I got tired of Juliann always on my behind. No matter what I said, she had to just inject the thread with her nastiness. I think she needs some counseling, to be honest with you.

I think they probably overlooked me, as far as banning, because it had been so long since I posted on FAIR. At least a year. I posted a few things a few months back, but before that it was quite a stretch there...too nauseating.

But I'd still like to slap Juliann...just once. It might help...I'd sing this while I did it...

Just a spoonful of common sense helps the dissonance go down,
The dissonance go down, dissonance go down,
Just a spoonful of common sense helps the dissonance go down,
In the most delightful way!!!![/i]

[_beastie]

Yes, Ray, it's on page three of the thread.

by the way, I'm not dissing Ben by referring to his comment. He truly embraces postmodernism. It's just rather shocking to hear. I guess I'm a "fundamentalist", because I always thought that the divinity of JC and the restoration of the "true" priesthood of said Jesus were foundational claims of the LDS church. Why else would it even be needed?

At any rate, I had to push Ben a bit to get to it, but he finally addressed it:

(my original question)

Ok. So would only a fundamentalist insist that viewing Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world is a foundational truth claim in Mormonism, and to alter that would fundamentally alter Mormonism in a way that would unacceptable to the vast majority of Mormons, including prophets?

My clarification:

I am trying to figure out how firm your conviction is that the only foundational idea behind Mormonism is that of continuing revelation. If the current prophet received a revelation that Jesus wasn’t really the Son of God, although he was a good and noble man and teacher, and that past prophets only taught as much due to their own cultural filters, would that alteration so fundamentally change Mormonism that most believers today would no longer accept is as Mormonism?

Ben's reply:

If the prophet were to make such a statement, and God confirmed it to the members of the church, then what happens? Would it matter what past prophets said? Postmodernism deprivildges tradition in this fashion, just as the LDS doctrine of ongoing revelation does.

[_Sam Harris]

Oh, sorry, I forgot to provide the link.

I post as sevenofniine on ZLMB. Although I mirrored the thread here on Z deliberately to allow Juliann the opportunity to respond to my criticisms, she refuses to respond there, and instead created a "response" thread on MAD, which, so far, as been pretty nonsensical. I do quote her in my responses on Z.

Here's the Z thread:

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =513.topic

And here's the response MAD thread (you'll probably have to cut and paste the link)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=20292

I responded to Juliann's "why doesn't seven come over here" rant. The mods will eat it in a few hours. I can't stand that woman. Seriously, I hope I never see her in public, I'd have to smack her. That's not like me.

GIMR

I have some people I would like you to smack for me...because I have felt that way about many people as of late and I don't mean on this board....

I mean in my life....I would like you to smack some white boys I know.....is that racist when I say that???

These White boys I have in my classes think the world revolves around them and they can't stand a smart white women in class that smarts them down....
I can't help it if I have lived through most of the stuff we talk about in our civil liberties class....and I can smart them down

Aren't people who are intimidated by you funny? They can be dangerous as well, as I have come to learn by working in the corporate world. Apparently the words "teach me" mean "I want to take your job, beeatch!". LOL!

Having grown up in a world where they spoke of "black" and "white" everything, skin, speech, clothes, music, behavior, I don't think it's racist to say "white boy", any more than it is to say "black boy". I have problems with epithets like cr*cker and n*gger, as they are meant to be derogative. But if the census can say "white" or "black", then so can you. I find that people who usually have problems with the black/white terminology are closet racists trying to pin their issues on everyone else.

[_Ray A]

Yes, Ray, it's on page three of the thread.

by the way, I'm not dissing Ben by referring to his comment. He truly embraces postmodernism. It's just rather shocking to hear. I guess I'm a "fundamentalist", because I always thought that the divinity of JC and the restoration of the "true" priesthood of said Jesus were foundational claims of the LDS church. Why else would it even be needed?

Shocked would be an understatement to describe my reaction. He'd better not tell that to Charity. I'm not criticising him either, I'm just a quite amazed.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Oh, sorry, I forgot to provide the link.

I post as sevenofniine on ZLMB. Although I mirrored the thread here on Z deliberately to allow Juliann the opportunity to respond to my criticisms, she refuses to respond there, and instead created a "response" thread on MAD, which, so far, as been pretty nonsensical. I do quote her in my responses on Z.

Here's the Z thread:

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =513.topic

And here's the response MAD thread (you'll probably have to cut and paste the link)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=20292

I responded to Juliann's "why doesn't seven come over here" rant. The mods will eat it in a few hours. I can't stand that woman. Seriously, I hope I never see her in public, I'd have to smack her. That's not like me.

GIMR

I have some people I would like you to smack for me...because I have felt that way about many people as of late and I don't mean on this board....

I mean in my life....I would like you to smack some white boys I know.....is that racist when I say that???

These White boys I have in my classes think the world revolves around them and they can't stand a smart white women in class that smarts them down....
I can't help it if I have lived through most of the stuff we talk about in our civil liberties class....and I can smart them down

Aren't people who are intimidated by you funny? They can be dangerous as well, as I have come to learn by working in the corporate world. Apparently the words "teach me" mean "I want to take your job, beeatch!". LOL!

Having grown up in a world where they spoke of "black" and "white" everything, skin, speech, clothes, music, behavior, I don't think it's racist to say "white boy", any more than it is to say "black boy". I have problems with epithets like cr*cker and n*gger, as they are meant to be derogative. But if the census can say "white" or "black", then so can you. I find that people who usually have problems with the black/white terminology are closet racists trying to pin their issues on everyone else.

GIMR

thank you for that....these same boys sat in class and tried to say they did not know what Cr*acker meant...
I had the hardest time not calling them liars...but I held my tongue

I intimidate people sometimes without meaning to....but sometimes I do mean to intimidate people...because everytime I turn around someone is trying intimidate me simply becasue I am a woman...

[_Runtu]

Ben's reply:

If the prophet were to make such a statement, and God confirmed it to the members of the church, then what happens? Would it matter what past prophets said? Postmodernism deprivildges tradition in this fashion, just as the LDS doctrine of ongoing revelation does.

I'm not really surprised. The idea is that whether there is some kind of truth out there, it is unavailable except through the prism of subjective human experience. So, the statement of a prophet is just one more text to be received subjectively by the membership. This approach is nice because it allows for a fluid notion of "continuing revelation." The problem is that it's far more fluid than Mormonism actually allows for. But whatever works.

For the record, I like Ben and have always respected his approach to Mormonism.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

And yes these boys threatened my life and harassed me on campus for weeks on end...you are right they are dangerous

[_beastie]

by the way, people who can log into MAD can check the member list to see if "beastie" is listed as a banned member. I can't check because I can't log in.

Shocked would be an understatement to describe my reaction. He'd better not tell that to Charity. I'm not criticising him either, I'm just a quite amazed.

Me too. I knew he would have to do it to maintain his primary point, but I kind of thought he'd back down from that one.

I'm not really surprised. The idea is that whether there is some kind of truth out there, it is unavailable except through the prism of subjective human experience. So, the statement of a prophet is just one more text to be received subjectively by the membership. This approach is nice because it allows for a fluid notion of "continuing revelation." The problem is that it's far more fluid than Mormonism actually allows for. But whatever works.

For the record, I like Ben and have always respected his approach to Mormonism.

I like Ben, too, and a good part of the reason is due to the fact that he is pretty consistent in his stance, and has the courage to defend it. Whether or not I agree with him (and I don't agree with him that he presents the actual stance of the LDS church at all) I can tell his approach is well thought out.

However, I do think EA is right. I think that Ben is having a problem with "truth" and relativity. What really matters? One's personal revelation and the confirmation of the community alone? Then really there is no external truth being reflected by that standard, since past revelation and confirmation of the community can be rejected as no longer true.

[_Bond...James Bond]

by the way, people who can log into MAD can check the member list to see if "beastie" is listed as a banned member. I can't check because I can't log in.

You're not listed as banned.

Bond