The unbelieving Fifth Column

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Hey, Loran, believe it or not, I used to be like you. I read NRO daily (even had a running email conversation with Rich Lowry) and FrontPage (I used to really like David Horowitz); and need I remind you I know who Paul Shanklin is. I'm still pretty conservative (ask Blixa. LOL). But here's the thing, Loran. You second Crockett's disdainful description of me and call that an archetype. If you're going to spew BS like that, expect to get something in return.

And then you saw the light, eh Runtu?

You know what's a dead giveaway with you? your vocabulary dropping. You use "ontology" and "solipsism" more than anyone I know. It's as if you have to use the vocabulary because you're not confident in your intelligence.

Actually, you insignificant little diatom, I use those words because I've been reading and enjoying philosophy for a very long time, as well as other great literature, both fiction and nonfiction, and I know what those terms mean, and I have a large vocabulary, and I use those terms because I like to use them and they allow me to express what I desire to express in the manner I want to express it. Go put some C-4 down your pants and blow yourself.

How's that for expression?

For what it's worth, you strike me as being very intelligent but educated largely by the Internet. Drop the belligerence and the name-calling, and we might have something to talk about.

My education, since I was about 10 years old, had been primarily from reading books. I use the Internet quite a bit, especially the best think tanks and blogs. flake off.

[_harmony]

The above post is a prime example of the scroll-through-ignore type. Just Loran being Loran. Nothing new there.

[_Coggins7]

No, its a prime example of the end of my patience with people who think anyone who uses "big words" they don't understand is indicative of a lack of confidence in their intelligence.

[_Runtu]

No, its a prime example of the end of my patience with people who think anyone who uses "big words" they don't understand is indicative of a lack of confidence in their intelligence.

I seem to have struck a nerve. Again, if you're going to say rather nasty things about people, don't be surprised if you get something back.

And I'm sorry. My impression is that you use big words you don't understand. And you use them because you think they sound impressive.

And, no, I haven't "seen the light." I'm just self-aware enough to know what I don't know. And I'm smart enough to recognize an empty bloviator.

[_Coggins7]

No, its a prime example of the end of my patience with people who think anyone who uses "big words" they don't understand is indicative of a lack of confidence in their intelligence.

I seem to have struck a nerve. Again, if you're going to say rather nasty things about people, don't be surprised if you get something back.

And I'm sorry. My impression is that you use big words you don't understand. And you use them because you think they sound impressive.

And, no, I haven't "seen the light." I'm just self-aware enough to know what I don't know. And I'm smart enough to recognize an empty bloviator.

May the Bluebird of Happiness ka ka on your Bippy.

[_beastie]

Go put some C-4 down your pants and blow yourself.

Tsk, tsk. Angels record your every word, you know. :O

Boy, did runtu ever hit a nerve with you!!! We'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves if that obviously hit nerve means his words were too close for comfort.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason is the one man Harmony defense committee here, and we've gotten used to his role.

If you followed the thread you would see my remarks had nothing to do with Harmony. Rather it had to do with the Brown shirt tactics Will espouses and that you seem fine with as well. No surprise here.

He apparently feels somewhat threatened, in an indirect manner,

I feel no threat at all. Nothing I have posted here would be news to my SP or bishop. So don't try to get in my head coggy. You and up looking foolisher then you already are.

by what is observed regarding Harmony.

As noted my comments that you responded too have nothing to do with Harmony. But hey, I am happy to defend her. Her issues are between her and her bishop and not your. How she answers her TR questions I do not know and I am not accountable. SHe is and so is her bishop as her judge in Israel. Busy bodies are, in my opinion, the worst problems a ward can have.

But, at least Jason's still in the cafeteria, while Harmony has left the premises.

Well I am happy I meet your approval, somewhat.

[_Jason Bourne]

Joseph had a gift; one gift. He overstepped his stewardship when he went past that gift. From there, it was all downhill.

According to whom and upon what basis?

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Commandments

Content of the Book of Commandments

All the revelations contained in the Book of Commandments became part of a larger text of Mormon scriptures published in 1835. In this and latter editions, the collection is called the Doctrine and Covenants (commonly abbreviated D&C).

Changes exist between the revelations as printed in the Evening and Morning Star and the Books of Commandments, but these are considered superficial and are chiefly typographical fixes. Much more controversial changes exist between the Book of Commandments and the 1835 and subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Most are also superficial—spelling and grammar fixes or including full names. However, more substantive changes also exist. For example, mention of biblical apostles Peter, James, and John imparting Joseph Smith Jr. with the Priesthood is in section 27 of D&C, but is omitted from the equivalent chapter in the Book of Commandments.

Critics and anti-Mormons claim these changes reflect the changing doctrines of Joseph Smith, but Mormons are more likely to hold that the changes are elaborations or clarifications of previously revealed doctrine. For example, a scripture often cited by anti-Mormons says,

"...and he has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift." — Book of Commandments, 4:2

This passage refers to Joseph Smith in third person. However, the re-numbered Doctrine and Covenants reads:

"...and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished." — Doctrine and Covenants, 5:4

Critics assert that Smith originally claimed only to be charged with translating the Book of Mormon. According to this view, he had to revise the passage to bring it into accord with his subsequent translation of the Bible and claim to be sole prophet in the Church. An apologist would reply that this misunderstanding of the original text is precisely why it had to be clarified

[_Jason Bourne]

I'd be interested to know, as I asked above, upon what basis you make such assertions? You have as yet failed to deal with the issue, or the numerous Old Testament examples of plural marriage suffering no condemnation.

Old Testament Polygamy is nothing like LDS polygamy. It was tolerated by God due to cultural issues. It was not commanded nor ever given in any way as an ordinance for eternal life or entrance into the highest kingdom. And it is pretty clear the New Testament rule was one wife. It is also interesting the Jacob 2 gives a blanket condemnation for David and Solomon's polygamy while D&C 132 says it was all ok except for Bathsheba. Compare the two passages. They seem a direct contradiction. No time to cut and paste them right now.

[_Jason Bourne]

Same old same old Harmony. There isn't a shred of documentary historical evidence he ever "took Fanny to bed" at all. That is pure assumption and bad faith on the part of people like you. When you have some evidence to back up your slander, let us all know.

Loran

Ask any reputable LDS historian on this. They all agree that Joseph and Fanny were sexually involved and that fanny was his first plural wife. Why do you think a number of years ago the intro to D&C 132 says Joseph Smith knew the doctrine as early as 1831.