For Plutarch: Apologists and Hypocrisy

[_rcrocket]

Do a google search. Or read the chapter in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power that deals with "Shadow Government." Or track down the thread that claims that "The Church Monitors Over 1,500 Websites."

Cowardly anonymity does not apply to "readers." I am not a cowardly anonymite [catamite? hmm] when I read my law books or cases on line. I would be a cowardly anonymite if I wrote anonymous hit pieces against living persons -- which you do.

P

I'm not talking about "readers." I'm talking about people assembling dossiers in order to inflict harm on them. Moreover, I do not write "hit pieces."

Oh please. This is your reference. "Do a google search?"

I would like you to cite me to a specific non-anonymous source who has first-hand evidence that Church goons in Salt Lake Central monitor this cite for the purpose of "inflicting harm." Just one person? I might be persuaded that individual lurkers find this cite offensive and might make reports to their bishops when or if you cowards come out of the closet, but even under that circumstance I'd like a specific reference for your claim.

And, you do write "hit pieces." And you are somewhat effective. You tend to persuade idiots who can't see the type of poster an anonymite might be.

You are weak on this board. The threads are lightweight. I see reference to Kevin's assertion that I couldn't keep up with the DNA debate, or other debates, but I have yet to see anything like that started on this Board. Start it, make intelligent comments, and you'll see how poor your arguments are (although, I might confess, I have never really kept up on the Book of Abraham stuff). Instead, you are consumed with dripping jealously with somebody named Julianne. Who the hell is she? You follow her every moves, and report every gaffe. Gee, I should be so lucky to have a board dedicated to my every move.


P

[_Mister Scratch]

Absolutely Gaz. The church keeps abreast of main currents of thought in the anti-Mormon world, and they buy counter-cult and secular liberal anti-church material.

No. The SCMC exists primarily to monitor members. Anything critical said about the Church goes into a dossier. What's more, if members give speeches in public, SCMC agents are dispatched to make recordings of the speeches.

But this is for reference. They should, indeed, apprise themselves of what's being said and taught so that they may better, when necessary, rebut, refute, and take principled issue with such claims.

It seems more accurate to say that they do this in order to smear the member after the fact. Ala Grant Palmer or Simon Southerton.

What I'm getting from Scratch is that there is a kind of LDS Gestapo that monitors websites and makes a list of whose been naughty and nice and then draws up excommunication lists.

That is exactly the purpose of the SCMC, in fact. I could not have said it better myself.

[_rcrocket]

Why do you see Plutarch as an ally, Loran? Don't you know that he believes women should hold the priesthood?

That actually is very true. Have I really said that on this board somewhere?

P

[_Coggins7]

Why do you see Plutarch as an ally, Loran? Don't you know that he believes women should hold the priesthood?

Nice try Scratch. The problem is, that while I would disagree that woman should hold the Priesthood at this time (else the Lord would have altered that situation at this point), if and when the Lord, through his appointed servants, extends that privelege to woman, I'll have nothing but tears of joy in my eyes in that day. Bring it on.

If that's the best you can do to try to sow discord between those who are turning your butt to creamcorn on a daily basis on the issues that really matter, You've got, as the metal god said, "another thing coming" (oh oh, I feel another song coming on...)

[_harmony]

Why do you see Plutarch as an ally, Loran? Don't you know that he believes women should hold the priesthood?

Nice try Scratch. The problem is, that while I would disagree that woman should hold the Priesthood at this time (else the Lord would have altered that situation at this point), if and when the Lord, through his appointed servants, extends that privelege to woman, I'll have nothing but tears of joy in my eyes in that day. Bring it on.

But then we'd be more than wives and mothers, Loran. Those are the only two catagories open to women, remember?

[_Mister Scratch]

Do a google search. Or read the chapter in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power that deals with "Shadow Government." Or track down the thread that claims that "The Church Monitors Over 1,500 Websites."

Cowardly anonymity does not apply to "readers." I am not a cowardly anonymite [catamite? hmm] when I read my law books or cases on line. I would be a cowardly anonymite if I wrote anonymous hit pieces against living persons -- which you do.

P

I'm not talking about "readers." I'm talking about people assembling dossiers in order to inflict harm on them. Moreover, I do not write "hit pieces."

Oh please. This is your reference. "Do a google search?"

I would like you to cite me to a specific non-anonymous source who has first-hand evidence that Church goons in Salt Lake Central monitor this cite for the purpose of "inflicting harm." Just one person? I might be persuaded that individual lurkers find this cite offensive and might make reports to their bishops when or if you cowards come out of the closet, but even under that circumstance I'd like a specific reference for your claim.

Already did cite a source, Bob. Lavina Fielding Anderson has a piece on the SCMC too, if I'm not mistaken. Further, I don't really see any reason why I should have to give sources to you, given how long you took to produce the MMM letter.

And, you do write "hit pieces." And you are somewhat effective. You tend to persuade idiots who can't see the type of poster an anonymite might be.

No, I report on the screw-ups of the apologists.

You are weak on this board. The threads are lightweight. I see reference to Kevin's assertion that I couldn't keep up with the DNA debate, or other debates, but I have yet to see anything like that started on this Board. Start it, make intelligent comments, and you'll see how poor your arguments are (although, I might confess, I have never really kept up on the Book of Abraham stuff).

Nowhere have I ever claimed that I am even interested in "deep" stuff. Frankly, I prefer to discuss the "lightweight" things. If you want deep discourse on DNA or the Book of Abraham, find somebody else to talk about it with. Or visit the Celestial Forum and get in on the Vogel/UD thread. You and Loran seem to think that I'm boasting about my "extensive" knowledge of LDS history, doctrine, theology, and culture. Never once have I ever boasted such a thing, and in fact I have frankly acknowledged that I really haven't read all that much. There you have it, Bob: I haven't read all that much. I don't know everything. I am not an expert on LDS history, culture, theology, or doctrine. I do have a *basic* grasp of all of it, though, and can hold my own in an argument.

Instead, you are consumed with dripping jealously with somebody named Julianne.

You misspelled her name. And believe me, I pity juliann far more than I envy here.

Who the hell is she?

One of the head honchos at MAD. And I've told you this before. Pull your head out, Bob. I get sick of having to repeat myself to you, on account of you being so dense and forgetful.

You follow her every moves, and report every gaffe.

No, I only report the really juicy and provocative gaffes.

Gee, I should be so lucky to have a board dedicated to my every move.

P

Sadly, you are not interesting or high-profile enough.

Edited to add: I posted a lengthy review of Prof. Peterson's "scholarly" editorial, "The Witchcraft Paradigm." It has not received a single reply. Do you want to respond to that, or do you want to continue to claim that I never engage anything "deep"?

[_Mercury]

Do a google search. Or read the chapter in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power that deals with "Shadow Government." Or track down the thread that claims that "The Church Monitors Over 1,500 Websites."

You tend to persuade idiots who can't see the type of poster an anonymite might be.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again Poo?

In this sentence you champion anonymous individuals. Hmm, yet another double standard.

[_Coggins7]

But then we'd be more than wives and mothers, Loran. Those are the only two catagories open to women, remember?

But then again, neither I, nor any other LDS here, or any GA of recent memory, is has been making that claim. Those are the words you have put into the mouths of myself and the church in general. They're not my words.

[_harmony]

But then we'd be more than wives and mothers, Loran. Those are the only two catagories open to women, remember?

But then again, neither I, nor any other LDS here, or any GA of recent memory, is has been making that claim. Those are the words you have put into the mouths of myself and the church in general. They're not my words.

Was this not your post?:

a. The roles of woman, following gospel teachings, combined with some of my own philosophical observations (following George Gilder, to some extent), are:

1. As an indispensible earthly and eternal companion in life, love, child rearing, spritual, psychological, and emotional maturity, and in the bringing to pass of the immortality and eternal life of man, that is, men and woman are inextricably linked to each other in the process of exaltation.

2. Woman have the primary, but not sole reposnibility for the raising and nurturing of children. This is an emphasis, not a dichotomy between men and woman.

3. Woman exert an inherant civilizing role on men, both because of their inherant feminine nature and qualities but because of the direct causal link between sexuality and childbirth (and therefore family and posterity). Woman exert a natural domesticating and civilizing effect on men such that many of the inherant male tendencies that would otherwise run amok and turn to social pathology are controlled, channeled, refined, and matured within the context of a role as provider, protector, teacher, and leader of a family.

1. Wife
2. Mother
3. Wife

[_Runtu]

1. Wife
2. Mother
3. Wife

A conversation I had with my daughter not long ago:

Daughter: Heavenly Father doesn't like girls as much as he likes boys.
Me: Why would you say that?
Daughter: Boys can be anything they want to be, but girls can't.
Me: Girls can be whatever they want to be.
Daughter: They can't be priesthood holders, so they can't be bishops or stake presidents or anything like that.
Wife: That doesn't matter because you have the greatest calling you can have: wife and mother.