A couple of days ago I decided to have some fun over at MAD.
I signed up using the moniker “shephard.” I used the same email name I always use -with a different provider of course– making it easy for the mods to tell who it is if they cared to look.
My intention was mainly to post a response on David Bokovoy’s blog. I submitted a comment, but he didn’t accept it so it never saw the light of day. So I decided to start my own thread discussing his divine council blog. Before I got into this I knew I would be banned the second I encountered DCP. I thought I should first get my feet wet for a couple of days and engage in some of the other discussions. After a couple of dozen posts on two or three different threads, I decided I would go ahead and post my comments regarding bokovoy's blog.
Enter Daniel Peterson.
I offered a mild corrective but Dan didn't like it.
I responded once to his comments, to which he also responded. And less than an hour later the moderator investigated and then shut me down.
That’s all well and good. I am not worried about this and I don’t blame the mods at all. I just thought it was fun to jog down memory lane and to observe how things never change over there.
The mods hawk over DCP and Bokovoy with this steel curtain. I just find it funny. For the first couple of days I was pretty aggressive on the other threads and the mods did nothing. I was actually trying to see how far I could take it before they jumped in, but they never did. With bokovoy and DCP, I was as polite and cordial as I knew how to be. But the second they see a capable poster challenge their top scholars, the first thing they look for is a reason to shut it down.
Fun at MAD
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
Fun at MAD
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
-
_Yoda
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
I guess I should go ahead and provide what was posted: The Divine Council, Did Joseph really "shock" the world?
This is in response to an article found on David Bokovoy's blog.
Dr. Bokovoy, on your blog you wrote up a piece on the divine council, suggesting Joseph Smith’s understanding of it is evidence of divine revelation:
It seems the idea here is to suppose Joseph Smith’s view was so out of the ordinary, that it is best explained as information via revelation. But did he really “shock” anyone with his comments on the divine council?
Do you not understand that contemporary scholarship at that time was already fully aware of the divine council? Given your statement above, I can only assume you do not. But as a modest corrective, there is no reason to think Joseph Smith’s divine council “shocked” anyone who was familiar with contemporary biblical scholarship. The most popular commentaries in Joseph Smith’s day alluded to a council in heaven.
In the mid-18th century John Gill wrote a commentary on the Bible. In his notes on Gen 1:26 he refers to angels who are not part of “God's privy council.” His notes on Job 15:8 call Jesus Christ the “Angel of the great council.” On Proverbs 19:21 he explicitly refers to the “divine council.”(John Gill, Commentary on the Old Testament)
John Wesley, who was an early Methodist leader- a denomination which captured Joseph Smith’s interest - wrote in the mid 18th century about the council in which God called in heaven:
“Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth must be put together in him, and he must be allied to both worlds. And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make, but is pleased so to express himself, as if he called a council to consider of the making of him.” (John Wesley, Commentary on Genesis)
Wesley’s successor, Adam Clarke, was also a Methodist theologian and he was responsible for writing a Bible commentary of extensive circulation published in eight volumes from 1810-1826. Like Gill, he explicitly used the phrase “divine council”:
“But of whom does Jacob speak? We have often seen, in the preceding chapters, an angel of God appearing to the patriarchs; (see particularly chap. xvi. 7, and the note there; See at "chap. xvi. 7") and we have full proof that this was no created angel, but the Messenger of the Divine Council, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Adam Clarke, Commentary on Genesis 48)
It is hard to imagine that Joseph Smith didn’t bother reading the standard scholarship available to him. that's three popular resources which allude to the divine council, two of which explicitly refer to the same exact phrase adopted by the Mormon prophet.
In short, this cannot be used as valid evidence that Joseph Smith received information via revelation. While the divine council has drawn more focus in 20th century scholarship, it was very much alive in 18th-19th century biblical scholarship. If anyone was “shocked” to hear about this, then this must have occurred a good century before Joseph Smith starting teaching about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LifeonaPlate asked:
"Do you disagree that many were shocked? If so, what is your evidence that many were not shocked?"
To which I responded:
There is no reason to believe Christians were "shocked" in the first place. But in any event, the burden of proof is on Bokovoy since he is the one making the claims. I am simply pointing out facts that he didn't mention. I mean let's be serious. If it turned out that the "divine council" jargon never existed until the early 20th century, then this would be astonishing evidence in favor of Mormonism since it would show the scholars were figuring stuff out a century later, that this uneducated farm boy figured out on his own. Readers are left to assume that this is the case. I’m simply pointing out that it isn’t.
As far as mind-reading goes, I am not the one claiming to know how Smith received information on the divine council. I am showing reasonable and probable possibilities without assuming divine intervention was involved.
I think it is more responsible to let readers know that the "divine council" was a readily accepted concept in Joseph Smith's day. The idea that God convened a council before creation, and that Jesus was the main figure, was hardly unique to Mormonism. But one doesn't realize that from Bokovoy's apologetic. Instead, he makes it sound like astonishing evidence that Joseph Smith received information via revelation.
Joseph Smith was a student of the Bible, so I find it unlikely that he would have neglected to read up on what the best in scholarship had to say about it, even if it was produced by apostate Christianity.
We already know Joseph Smith liked to read other books, such as Josephus, which is likely borrowed from when producing the Book of Abraham. He also owned a copy of Thomas Dix's book, whereby the idea of "intelligences" existing in the universe first originated. Is it just a coincidence that the only two works in history referring to cosmic entities called "intelligences" are in two books published within the same decade and that the author of the latter owned a copy of the former?
DCP said:
"I find it absolutely easy to imagine that Joseph Smith wasn't fully current with the biblical scholarship of the early nineteenth century. In fact, I very much doubt that he was. Incidentally, I think that it's relevant to note that Brother Bokovoy referred to "a divine council of deities" (emphasis mine) -- a Mormon doctrine that still shocks most mainstream Christians."
To which I responded:
Joseph Smith admittedly picked up on the plurality of elohim in his Hebrew studies, while discussing it with a learned Jew. This served as the basis for his divine council commentary. He never claimed it was divine revelation. He said it was a simple matter of understanding what the Hebrew meant. But you won’t find this information in Bokovoy’s piece either.
I should add, that even if he did eventaully claim God "revealed" it to him, he had already presented the basis for this knowledge that required no revelation at all. It was a simple matter of understanding how Hebrew works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LifeonaPlate wrote up a well thought out response but the discussion was closed before I could post this response. Here it is, and if he or anyone else from MAD wants to take up this discussion here, I'm up for it:
The answer is that it is irrelevant since I am not the one making a dogmatic assertion. This is how apologetics works in the Mormon faith, and it is absurd. You throw out allusions to possibilities and then you expect the opposition to disprove them, all the while leaving the impression that the evidence works in your favor. You don’t even begin with the responsible assumption that maybe, just maybe, you have some obligation to back up your own claims. Bokovoy said Joseph Smith’s concept of a divine council shocked Christians in his day. One would expect at least one reference for this because it is fundamental to his argument.
Sure I would. This is why I am asking for a reference. But absent a reference, it seems Bokovoy was taking license to polish his apologetic beyond what the evidence will support. Again, his outline lures the reader to believe the divine council was something of Joseph Smith’s revelation while the entire Christian world was ignorant of it, and then a century or so later biblical scholars realize Joseph Smith was right all along.
He allows the reader to go down that path down instead of informing them that Joseph Smith as merely reiterating what he had learned from learned Jews in his day.
In short, it doesn’t matter if Joseph Smith believed something that would become accepted by biblical scholars. It only matters if he received his information from revelation. That is the issue. The evidence suggests otherwise. The “plurality of gods” he admittedly learned from Jews in his day and he even used them to prove to his Mormon audience that he was right. The phrase “divine council” he could have easily used because 1) it is entirely appropriate given the biblical council scenes and 2) it had already been in use for a good century prior to 1844.
The goal posts are effectively being moved backwards, but you should still be able to provide a basis for this claim. Bokovoy spoke of a council held before creation whereby Jesus was the primary figure. In Joseph Smith’s day, this was already expressed in scholarship. Jesus was the “Angel of the great council” when God gathered the council to decide about what to do for creation.
Allow me to clarify. Joseph Smith’s doctrine of the plurality of gods is most certainly derived from his Hebrew studies. He even indicated as much when he spoke his great sermon, using Hebrew authorities to make his case. He never said “God revealed this to me.” What I am saying is that his exact usage of the phrase “divine council” was already in use.
The apologetic movement has a tendency to spread this falsehood that Joseph Smith read as little as possible – even the Bible!
No they don’t. Have you read this book, or are you merely relying on a FARMS dismissive review?
Dan Vogel’s book (Word of God) mentions it and provides the reference. I’ll have to get back to you with it. But this is a huge knock against Smith no matter how you look at it. Naturally the apologist will want to highlight whatever differences can be noted, but the similarities overwhelm. And this is not the only connection between Book of Abraham theology and Thomas’ book.
But you’re begging the question in spite of the evidence. The evidence shows Joseph Smith teaching this doctrine because his Hebrew authorities confirmed it.
So you see, Joseph Smith was not asking God. He was asking learned Jews.
I don’t either. He hired a Hebrew teacher, which was not a common thing for someone to do at that time and in his area.
Yes, it was published in the Book of Abraham. But again, Smith claims to have learned about it from his Hebrew teacher.
Read the context of the sermon. He is speaking of the plurality of the Tirnity, but the people were not leaving the Church over this. The people were leaving the Church because in 1833 he provided an “inspired” translation of the Bible which went as follows:
1833: Moses 2:3 – “And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.”
Yet, nearly a decade later, and after his Hebrew studies he learned that the elohim was plural, so he tweaked this in the Book of Abraham:
1842: Abraham 4:3 – “And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.”
See the difference? It was the former that was claimed to have come by revelation/inspiration, but then suddenly Joseph Smith drops a theological bomb on his own Church with this plurality doctrine. You can find the doctrine in D&C 121, but this was not published until 1876. So the congregation never knew about it until the Book of Abraham was published in 1842. The purpose of his plurality of gods sermon was to stop people from leaving the Church. He had some explaining to do, and he justified it with Jewish authority, not revelation.
You’re talking about something entirely different. The anthropomorphic nature of God and the existence of multiple gods outside the Trinity, are two different subjects. But the King Follett discourse was given just two months prior to his plurality of gods sermon, and it was instrumental in causing discontent among his followers, I’m sure.
This is in response to an article found on David Bokovoy's blog.
Dr. Bokovoy, on your blog you wrote up a piece on the divine council, suggesting Joseph Smith’s understanding of it is evidence of divine revelation:
When all is said and done, the Book of Abraham presents a variety of profound religious and general cultural links with ancient Near Eastern tradition, including the Hebrew Bible. One of these interesting connections between the Book of Abraham and the Near East includes the centrality of divine council imagery.
Unlike the book of Genesis which commences with a reference declaring that God, i.e. (elohim) created the heaven and earth, the creation account in the Book of Abraham commences with the statement, “at the beginning… they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1).
This statement concerning the Gods and creation reflects the theology taught by Joseph Smith, particularly towards the end of his prophetic ministry. During the April conference of the Church in 1844, Joseph Smith testified regarding the importance of the heavenly council organized before the creation of the earth. Concerning “the beginning,” Joseph declared that “the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.” Joseph Smith, Teachings 349.
Though Joseph’s views concerning a divine council of deities shocked many contemporary 19th century Christians, today, biblical scholars recognize that the council of Gods provides “a fundamental symbol for the Old Testament understanding of how the government of human society by the divine world is carried out”; Patrick D. Miller, “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament,” Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 432.
It seems the idea here is to suppose Joseph Smith’s view was so out of the ordinary, that it is best explained as information via revelation. But did he really “shock” anyone with his comments on the divine council?
Do you not understand that contemporary scholarship at that time was already fully aware of the divine council? Given your statement above, I can only assume you do not. But as a modest corrective, there is no reason to think Joseph Smith’s divine council “shocked” anyone who was familiar with contemporary biblical scholarship. The most popular commentaries in Joseph Smith’s day alluded to a council in heaven.
In the mid-18th century John Gill wrote a commentary on the Bible. In his notes on Gen 1:26 he refers to angels who are not part of “God's privy council.” His notes on Job 15:8 call Jesus Christ the “Angel of the great council.” On Proverbs 19:21 he explicitly refers to the “divine council.”(John Gill, Commentary on the Old Testament)
John Wesley, who was an early Methodist leader- a denomination which captured Joseph Smith’s interest - wrote in the mid 18th century about the council in which God called in heaven:
“Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth must be put together in him, and he must be allied to both worlds. And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make, but is pleased so to express himself, as if he called a council to consider of the making of him.” (John Wesley, Commentary on Genesis)
Wesley’s successor, Adam Clarke, was also a Methodist theologian and he was responsible for writing a Bible commentary of extensive circulation published in eight volumes from 1810-1826. Like Gill, he explicitly used the phrase “divine council”:
“But of whom does Jacob speak? We have often seen, in the preceding chapters, an angel of God appearing to the patriarchs; (see particularly chap. xvi. 7, and the note there; See at "chap. xvi. 7") and we have full proof that this was no created angel, but the Messenger of the Divine Council, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Adam Clarke, Commentary on Genesis 48)
It is hard to imagine that Joseph Smith didn’t bother reading the standard scholarship available to him. that's three popular resources which allude to the divine council, two of which explicitly refer to the same exact phrase adopted by the Mormon prophet.
In short, this cannot be used as valid evidence that Joseph Smith received information via revelation. While the divine council has drawn more focus in 20th century scholarship, it was very much alive in 18th-19th century biblical scholarship. If anyone was “shocked” to hear about this, then this must have occurred a good century before Joseph Smith starting teaching about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LifeonaPlate asked:
"Do you disagree that many were shocked? If so, what is your evidence that many were not shocked?"
To which I responded:
There is no reason to believe Christians were "shocked" in the first place. But in any event, the burden of proof is on Bokovoy since he is the one making the claims. I am simply pointing out facts that he didn't mention. I mean let's be serious. If it turned out that the "divine council" jargon never existed until the early 20th century, then this would be astonishing evidence in favor of Mormonism since it would show the scholars were figuring stuff out a century later, that this uneducated farm boy figured out on his own. Readers are left to assume that this is the case. I’m simply pointing out that it isn’t.
As far as mind-reading goes, I am not the one claiming to know how Smith received information on the divine council. I am showing reasonable and probable possibilities without assuming divine intervention was involved.
I think it is more responsible to let readers know that the "divine council" was a readily accepted concept in Joseph Smith's day. The idea that God convened a council before creation, and that Jesus was the main figure, was hardly unique to Mormonism. But one doesn't realize that from Bokovoy's apologetic. Instead, he makes it sound like astonishing evidence that Joseph Smith received information via revelation.
Joseph Smith was a student of the Bible, so I find it unlikely that he would have neglected to read up on what the best in scholarship had to say about it, even if it was produced by apostate Christianity.
We already know Joseph Smith liked to read other books, such as Josephus, which is likely borrowed from when producing the Book of Abraham. He also owned a copy of Thomas Dix's book, whereby the idea of "intelligences" existing in the universe first originated. Is it just a coincidence that the only two works in history referring to cosmic entities called "intelligences" are in two books published within the same decade and that the author of the latter owned a copy of the former?
DCP said:
"I find it absolutely easy to imagine that Joseph Smith wasn't fully current with the biblical scholarship of the early nineteenth century. In fact, I very much doubt that he was. Incidentally, I think that it's relevant to note that Brother Bokovoy referred to "a divine council of deities" (emphasis mine) -- a Mormon doctrine that still shocks most mainstream Christians."
To which I responded:
Joseph Smith admittedly picked up on the plurality of elohim in his Hebrew studies, while discussing it with a learned Jew. This served as the basis for his divine council commentary. He never claimed it was divine revelation. He said it was a simple matter of understanding what the Hebrew meant. But you won’t find this information in Bokovoy’s piece either.
I should add, that even if he did eventaully claim God "revealed" it to him, he had already presented the basis for this knowledge that required no revelation at all. It was a simple matter of understanding how Hebrew works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LifeonaPlate wrote up a well thought out response but the discussion was closed before I could post this response. Here it is, and if he or anyone else from MAD wants to take up this discussion here, I'm up for it:
In other words, a short answer is, no, you don't know that many people were not, in fact, shocked at this doctrine.
The answer is that it is irrelevant since I am not the one making a dogmatic assertion. This is how apologetics works in the Mormon faith, and it is absurd. You throw out allusions to possibilities and then you expect the opposition to disprove them, all the while leaving the impression that the evidence works in your favor. You don’t even begin with the responsible assumption that maybe, just maybe, you have some obligation to back up your own claims. Bokovoy said Joseph Smith’s concept of a divine council shocked Christians in his day. One would expect at least one reference for this because it is fundamental to his argument.
Would you allow the possibility, though? It seems you wouldn't, but I could be wrong.
Sure I would. This is why I am asking for a reference. But absent a reference, it seems Bokovoy was taking license to polish his apologetic beyond what the evidence will support. Again, his outline lures the reader to believe the divine council was something of Joseph Smith’s revelation while the entire Christian world was ignorant of it, and then a century or so later biblical scholars realize Joseph Smith was right all along.
He allows the reader to go down that path down instead of informing them that Joseph Smith as merely reiterating what he had learned from learned Jews in his day.
In short, it doesn’t matter if Joseph Smith believed something that would become accepted by biblical scholars. It only matters if he received his information from revelation. That is the issue. The evidence suggests otherwise. The “plurality of gods” he admittedly learned from Jews in his day and he even used them to prove to his Mormon audience that he was right. The phrase “divine council” he could have easily used because 1) it is entirely appropriate given the biblical council scenes and 2) it had already been in use for a good century prior to 1844.
Smith provides us with interesting details of the Council you haven't yet brought up in your citations. Details that differ from the commonly accepted notion of the Council as it was mentioned by the people you cite.
The goal posts are effectively being moved backwards, but you should still be able to provide a basis for this claim. Bokovoy spoke of a council held before creation whereby Jesus was the primary figure. In Joseph Smith’s day, this was already expressed in scholarship. Jesus was the “Angel of the great council” when God gathered the council to decide about what to do for creation.
Joseph, from what I've seen, was much more interested in learning and reading the original Hebrew, rather than reading up on the latest scholarship.
Allow me to clarify. Joseph Smith’s doctrine of the plurality of gods is most certainly derived from his Hebrew studies. He even indicated as much when he spoke his great sermon, using Hebrew authorities to make his case. He never said “God revealed this to me.” What I am saying is that his exact usage of the phrase “divine council” was already in use.
I wasn't aware that Smith owned copies of Thomas' works
The apologetic movement has a tendency to spread this falsehood that Joseph Smith read as little as possible – even the Bible!
though I do know the "intelligences," while using the same term, differed greatly in their definitions.
No they don’t. Have you read this book, or are you merely relying on a FARMS dismissive review?
I just finished some works on Orson Pratt that delve deeply into the philosophical interpretations of Thomas and Joseph, which Pratt spent a to of time speculating upon. Again you've brought up similar terms but forget to include that Smith's understanding of the terms differ radically in each case you've brought up. CFR on Joseph owning those books, by the way, I'd be interested to see more on what we know Joseph owned as far as books are concerned. If you want to get more into the differences on the subject of "intelligences" We can start another thread on that.
Dan Vogel’s book (Word of God) mentions it and provides the reference. I’ll have to get back to you with it. But this is a huge knock against Smith no matter how you look at it. Naturally the apologist will want to highlight whatever differences can be noted, but the similarities overwhelm. And this is not the only connection between Book of Abraham theology and Thomas’ book.
While that played a major role, I personally suspect Joseph underwent a similar revelation to Lorenzo Snow's, that he learned it before he discovered it in another teacher or book (Hebrew Bible, for example,) and was thrilled to see it appear right in front of his eyes.
But you’re begging the question in spite of the evidence. The evidence shows Joseph Smith teaching this doctrine because his Hebrew authorities confirmed it.
I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?"
So you see, Joseph Smith was not asking God. He was asking learned Jews.
The great mysteries staring him in the face likely produced a thrill. If it went that way, anyway. If he discovered it while reading the Bible alone, good for him. I just don't see it that way
I don’t either. He hired a Hebrew teacher, which was not a common thing for someone to do at that time and in his area.
Here we disagree again. Joseph Smith verily did claim it as revelation, and while you can find details canonized in the current Pearl of Great Price, he published the doctrines in the Book of Abraham in Nauvoo's Times and Seasons.
Yes, it was published in the Book of Abraham. But again, Smith claims to have learned about it from his Hebrew teacher.
I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. (History of the Church, Vol. VI, p. 474)
Read the context of the sermon. He is speaking of the plurality of the Tirnity, but the people were not leaving the Church over this. The people were leaving the Church because in 1833 he provided an “inspired” translation of the Bible which went as follows:
1833: Moses 2:3 – “And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.”
Yet, nearly a decade later, and after his Hebrew studies he learned that the elohim was plural, so he tweaked this in the Book of Abraham:
1842: Abraham 4:3 – “And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.”
See the difference? It was the former that was claimed to have come by revelation/inspiration, but then suddenly Joseph Smith drops a theological bomb on his own Church with this plurality doctrine. You can find the doctrine in D&C 121, but this was not published until 1876. So the congregation never knew about it until the Book of Abraham was published in 1842. The purpose of his plurality of gods sermon was to stop people from leaving the Church. He had some explaining to do, and he justified it with Jewish authority, not revelation.
Albeit, he likely preached it only to those who "had ears to hear," so to speak, but in the end, it was detailed in the King Follett discourse. And people were shocked to hear that God was once a man, but Joseph didn't stop there; for he went on to explain that God still IS a man today! An exalted and perfect one, but a man nonetheless, truly, THE Man. To say Joseph never claimed it as divine revelation is false.
You’re talking about something entirely different. The anthropomorphic nature of God and the existence of multiple gods outside the Trinity, are two different subjects. But the King Follett discourse was given just two months prior to his plurality of gods sermon, and it was instrumental in causing discontent among his followers, I’m sure.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
-
_harmony
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
What I'd like to see is some demonstration that the people were "shocked". As in... several newspaper articles using the word "shocked" as related to this subject, numerous journals of non-LDS people stating they were "shocked" by this information, or something similiar.
Otherwise, we're left with only the option of taking David's word for it. And we all know how I feel about trusting men.
Bah! Show us evidence of people being shocked, not just an assertion.
Otherwise, we're left with only the option of taking David's word for it. And we all know how I feel about trusting men.
Bah! Show us evidence of people being shocked, not just an assertion.
-
_skippy the dead
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am
I saw that thread, and thought it sounded like you. Too bad you got shut down again.
Of course, this is the same board where Smac starts a thread about Harry Reid's speech at BYU in which he mentions ETB's politics (so, a politician talking about politics), and then shuts it down a few posts later as Rhad saying "No politics." What the hell was he thinking when he started the thread, seeing as how it was political when it started?
Of course, this is the same board where Smac starts a thread about Harry Reid's speech at BYU in which he mentions ETB's politics (so, a politician talking about politics), and then shuts it down a few posts later as Rhad saying "No politics." What the hell was he thinking when he started the thread, seeing as how it was political when it started?
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
This reminds me of the observation I made about MA&D--its purpose is not to defend Mormonism; its purpose is to defend Mormon apologetics.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
_evolving
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:17 pm
thank you for continuing your thoughts here~
the posts you made on MAD are as always very logical and insightful. it is a shame you are now allowed to post these types of arguments without being shut down.
as I continue to strive for intelligence, mixed with common sense, sprinkled with a little deductive reasoning. your inputs are very appreciated.
~evolving
the posts you made on MAD are as always very logical and insightful. it is a shame you are now allowed to post these types of arguments without being shut down.
as I continue to strive for intelligence, mixed with common sense, sprinkled with a little deductive reasoning. your inputs are very appreciated.
~evolving
-
_Rollo Tomasi
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4085
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm
Re: Fun at MAD
dartagnan wrote:Enter Daniel Peterson.
I offered a mild corrective but Dan didn't like it.
I responded once to his comments, to which he also responded. And less than an hour later the moderator investigated and then shut me down.
I guess this is why Bishop Dan no longer posts here -- he doesn't have Mod protection like at MAD. What a wuss.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-
_Trinity
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:36 pm
I saw it and recognized you immediately based on the way you were outlining your argument.
Russian Proxy? lol.
I was given a week suspension for mentioning that people covenant in the temple to devote their time and energies to the church. I quoted "consecrate their time, talents, and possessions to the Church" and was suspended for exposing temple content.
Apparently they never use that phrase outside the temple. Or do they. LDS.org: You searched for "consecrate their time, talents, and possessions to the Church" in Gospel Library. Results 1 - 20 of 62
Imbeciles.
Russian Proxy? lol.
I was given a week suspension for mentioning that people covenant in the temple to devote their time and energies to the church. I quoted "consecrate their time, talents, and possessions to the Church" and was suspended for exposing temple content.
Apparently they never use that phrase outside the temple. Or do they. LDS.org: You searched for "consecrate their time, talents, and possessions to the Church" in Gospel Library. Results 1 - 20 of 62
Imbeciles.