BishopRic wrote:...every time a "critic" would say "I was taught..." there was a cfr demand.
I SERIOUSLY wonder if these apologists went to the same church that I did.
When I would say some of the most common, simple, over-taught doctrines in the church...something like "don't read anti material"...DCP and his ilk would list their resume of the hundreds of wards and callings they have all been in and NEVER heard anything like that. I've probably been hit with CFR's a dozen or so times with things that I thought were commonplace assumptions. Things that I had heard taught often. They were almost no-brainers. It's mind boggling.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Scottie wrote:I SERIOUSLY wonder if these apologists went to the same church that I did.
Theirs is the Church of "Would You Quit Asking Tough Questions and Leave Us the Hell Alone."
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
BishopRic wrote:...every time a "critic" would say "I was taught..." there was a cfr demand.
I SERIOUSLY wonder if these apologists went to the same church that I did.
When I would say some of the most common, simple, over-taught doctrines in the church...something like "don't read anti material"...DCP and his ilk would list their resume of the hundreds of wards and callings they have all been in and NEVER heard anything like that. I've probably been hit with CFR's a dozen or so times with things that I thought were commonplace assumptions. Things that I had heard taught often. They were almost no-brainers. It's mind boggling.
Exactly! I was thinking about this yesterday...I wonder if most mopologists on these boards are either 1) a lot younger than I am (I'm 50), and maybe it really has changed recently, or 2) converts who weren't around when we really were taught the things we say.
Here's the truth: My friend and I sitting here are just talking about this...we took seminary in the mid 70s in the Salt Lake Valley. Neither one of us EVER heard that Joe had more than one physical wife. Brigham started polygamy, and it was because there was a shortage of men to take care of the women. Oh, and it was portrayed as an act of "service."
charity wrote:We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired."
Methinks there can be no better confirmation than this that charity is 'off her rocker.' Poor girl.
"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)
charity wrote:We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired."
Now see, I would expect this from some young, contrarian, testerone-filled Mormon "warrior" who feels it is his calling and duty to defend the truth like a stripling warrior. To see it from Charity is, well, kind of entertaining.
"I think one of the great mysteries of the gospel is that anyone still believes it." Sethbag, MADB, Feb 22 2008
BishopRic wrote:...every time a "critic" would say "I was taught..." there was a cfr demand.
I SERIOUSLY wonder if these apologists went to the same church that I did.
When I would say some of the most common, simple, over-taught doctrines in the church...something like "don't read anti material"...DCP and his ilk would list their resume of the hundreds of wards and callings they have all been in and NEVER heard anything like that. I've probably been hit with CFR's a dozen or so times with things that I thought were commonplace assumptions. Things that I had heard taught often. They were almost no-brainers. It's mind boggling.
"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?"
I've never posted there and I doubt I ever would. However, Moksha did post something I wrote here over there, so I can't say that I'm completely pure and delightsomely untainted.
I don't read that board much anymore. I used to when I was first "reconnecting" with Mormonism (catching up with what had gone down in the 20 or so years I paid little attention to it) and I have to say I was flabbergasted until beastie introduced me to the Shadian Paradigm. That helped, of course, still the MAD board is trip since it features attempts to weild contemporary critical theory side-by-side with worldviews more relevant to credulous and superstitious medieval peasants. I think what I find most off-putting about it, though, is the judgementalism, cruelty and utter lack of human charity I've seen expressed there quite often.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
charity wrote:We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired."
Now see, I would expect this from some young, contrarian, testerone-filled Mormon "warrior" who feels it is his calling and duty to defend the truth like a stripling warrior.
Daniel C Peterson, PhD? As a warrior? O-kay. I seriously need to stop laughing.