the road to hana wrote:Charity, I know Shades doesn't mind cross-posting, but aren't there rules against that sort of thing on MADB?
It was bound to happen - Charity can't reconvert anybody here, so now she's running off to ridicule on the other board instead of replying here. She didn't even provide any intelligent commentary (no surprise there), just a general look-at-what-they're-doing. "I see your true colors, shining through. . ."
Whatever.
Edited to add: Oh, and can a moderator please fix Pirate's post so that the whole page isn't two screens wide? Thanks!
[MODERATOR NOTE: Done!]
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)
I can't even say in this forum, let alone polite company, what I think of either of these excerpts. Somewhere, somebody absolutely has to have red flags going off in their head. If not, I really fear for the people who buy this.
Yeah... I'm speechless. (Doesn't happen very often... smile).
Just when I think the excuse making can't get any worse, it does. I don't even know how these guys can come up with this sort of thing.
It truly boggles the mind, and leaves me feeling sick.
~dancer~
Right you are, TD. So next year, apparently, the Maxwell Institute will be tackling their most difficult challenge to date--defending the unwitting role of Lucifer as God's servant in the Garden of Eden.
Thus, the principle of apple bribery may include an unfortunate element of treachery that must be restored, at least in a limited vestigal sense.
Lucifer sent Adam on a mission and secretly enticed Eve. It is likely unimportant whether Lucifer was acting knowingly in this matter or whether he was unwitting.
It is quite possible he pleaded with the Lord not to carry out the treacherous acts and that the Lord threatened him to proceed with full apple enticement.
At any rate, Lucifer fulfilled his role as instituter of the De facto institution of The Fall. Lucifer did not act in sin, but in perfect accordance with his sometimes unfortunate, unwanted role as apple briber as the Lord needed.
As we come to understand how closely Lucifer's actions parallel Scripture traditions, we catch a better glimpse of the often overlooked scope of his calling, including those elements which may seem at first glance, counter-intuitive.
When properly understood, Lucifer's sanctity leaps from the pages in ways hitherto unappreciated.
[/stifles laughter]
(Scarier yet, I imagine there are people nodding their heads in agreement.)
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Well Nehor, as joseph's life becomes more and more comon knowledge and the old tactic of "you got that from anti-mormon history not real history" loses credibility, what is going to be the reaction of the church? i think they'll say nothing, neither confirm or deny, and let FARMS field it the best they can and hope something works. i give the MI and bushman credit for honesty in their objective, but it's not really an honest objective, if you know what i mean.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
the road to hana wrote:Charity, I know Shades doesn't mind cross-posting, but aren't there rules against that sort of thing on MADB?
I didn't post that with any neener neener. I just thought the folks at MA&D should see what is making the rounds.
I didn't comment because I don't generally comment on anonymous stuff which might or might not even be close to accurate. Sneak peeks, etc. usually aren't. But I thought MA&D should know about it.
I will comment when I see IF it really was said, by whom. etc.
the road to hana wrote:Charity, I know Shades doesn't mind cross-posting, but aren't there rules against that sort of thing on MADB?
I didn't post that with any neener neener. I just thought the folks at MA&D should see what is making the rounds.
I didn't comment because I don't generally comment on anonymous stuff which might or might not even be close to accurate. Sneak peeks, etc. usually aren't. But I thought MA&D should know about it.
I will comment when I see IF it really was said, by whom. etc.
No neener-neener? What's this, then: "On another board, some of the posters are really getting in a snit over the coming Buhman summer program on Joseph Smith. One poster, Gadianton, says he is "annoyed" about it."
Please. It wasn't just so that the folks at MAD could see "what is making the rounds." It was a provocative act. Just own up to it.
Plus, if this anonymous stuff doesn't warrant any comment because it might not be accurate, it would appear to me that you should also then refrain from circulating it for the same reason.
It all boils down to you trying to stir the pot, then innocently claiming "What? Me?"
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)
the road to hana wrote:Charity, I know Shades doesn't mind cross-posting, but aren't there rules against that sort of thing on MADB?
I didn't post that with any neener neener. I just thought the folks at MA&D should see what is making the rounds.
I didn't comment because I don't generally comment on anonymous stuff which might or might not even be close to accurate. Sneak peeks, etc. usually aren't. But I thought MA&D should know about it.
I will comment when I see IF it really was said, by whom. etc.
From the board guidelines at MADB:
-Do not start board wars or cross-posting (duplicate discussions from other boards on the MADB boards or vice versa in order to continue an argument).
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
We do not know the nature of the Lord's approval of David taking multiple wives. We do know, however, that it was ordained of God. But David went too far,
"39 David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
-D&C 132:39"
We think it's likely that the severity of David's actions toward Uriah stem from the precedent he set in his covenants with the Lord, for the Lord allowed him to act before striking him from grace. Thus, the principle of polygamy may include an unfortunate element of treachery that must be restored, at least in a limited vestigial sense. David sent his countryman Uriah to battle and took Uriah's wife as his own. Joseph Smith sent his brethren on missions and secretly took their wives as his. It is likely unimportant whether Joseph Smith was acting knowingly in this matter or whether he was unwitting. It is quite possible that he pleaded with the Lord not to carry out the adulterous acts and that the Lord threatened him to proceed with consummation.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I will comment when I see IF it really was said, by whom. etc.
So you have to know who said something before forming an opinion on it and sharing that opinion?
Why?
1. It is part of the crediblity thing to know the source.
2. I left out part because I didn't want it to be too long. I hate long cut and paste things myself, and didn't want to subject others to the same kind of thing.
