There's not a damn Mormon on here worth engaging with...

[Reflexzero]

[...]---Why OP Rockwell, if you don't mind me asking?

He’s a bit of a paradox to me, and for whatever reason, my mind enjoys paradox.

It is both frustrating and fun trying to flesh out the facts from the fiction. He has been both mythologized and demonized. He was a loyal friend, and a heartless murderer. He had the unwavering scruples to never tell lies, yet he had no problem being a drunkard and obfuscating when necessarily. There are murders that have been attributed to him that he was innocent of, and murders that haven’t been attributed to him that should be.

He was a kind, generous man. He was a vicious cold-blooded ruffian and murderer. He was Yin and Yang combined with a volatile prophecy of quasi-immortality and clothed in a gruff exterior with eyes that both cut through the soul and were at the same time inviting enough to have women braid his hair. He was quick to help strangers, and equally swift to cut down acquaintances.

As I study him in between other topics, I more and more understand why Harold Schindler once lamented that his wife had to share him with a ghost.

Edited to add, now several hours after I made this post:
Of course, the above is only my current opinion of Rockwell. It is subject to change as I learn and grow with continued study.

[_Tal Bachman]

---Rcrocket - sorry, I have no idea who you are, and I don't remember a challenge to go mano-a-mano. Maybe I demurred because I thought it would be pointless after watching you answer "where?" questions with "because" clauses lol. If that post wasn't a joke....I rest my case.

Thanks.

That certainly is untrue; I don't answer questions with "because."

---Sigh.

Senor Crocket,

I just copied and pasted this from your earlier post:

I wrote: "Where are the Mormons you can have a rational conversation with about Mormonism?"

You replied:" Because your opening posts are lessons in unfocused verbosity, and then you rarely do much more than post an opening post. "

See what I mean?

"Where are my car keys?" "Because you lost them, that's why"

"Where is her house?" "Because she moved here last month"

"Where are all these cockroaches coming from?" "Because the house is dirty".

Et

cetera

Thanks for making my opening post on here look brilliant :P

[_Tal Bachman]

There are blatant differences between your approach and his. You have not created a thread basically stating that there are not Church members who post here who are worth your time engaging with. As Harmony pointed out, that's simply rude.

---Thank God the MAD board, and the MD Mormon posters, are super polite and set an excellent example. If only I could follow it...

And by the way, Moniker caught me; I think I did mix up Moksha and Harmony. My apologies Moksha.

Also, if YOU had created a thread like that, at least as a veteran poster of the board, you have a grasp on the personalities here, and how posters feel about issues. Tal comes in here blazing, thinking that he knows where everyone stands when he clearly doesn't.

---Upset you weren't mentioned, honey? Awww...

Anyway, maybe I'm not as long time as others here, but I've been around for a while...long enough to get everyone upset, anyway :P

I absolutely agree with you. Obviously this board is not suiting Tal's needs, and it would probably be best for him to look elsewhere.

---I seem to be fine as long as cool threads don't turn into the "How dumb is Wade Englund?" show.

At the same time, if he chooses to change his attitude a bit, I think he might be surprised at some of the rewarding discussions he could have.

---Yes - I would be very surprised.

[_Inconceivable]

Inconceivable - I found your post very moving. I hear what you're saying.

Thanks.

So far, it's really the only thing of value I've found in Mormonism - and it isn't even theirs. It seems to transcend all cultures, subcultures and religeons. I mean, I'd go so far as to say that even with all the rough edges, Dog the Bounty Hunter countenanced it from time to time (you'd have to squint a bit to see it, of course).



Coggs,

I'm not surprised you disagreed with McConkie on something. I am surprised on what you disagreed with. Is it possible for even you to speak of things of more import than who said what to whom?

What do you know of this subject McConkie spoke of? I mean, what do you really know?

..and by the way, the fact that you were a professor has what value? With the professors we've all known, who would want to drop that label on themselves unless that's as much as they really were?

[Anonymous]

Maaaaaaaan, there ain't a damn thing about Mormonism that makes sense. Is it any surprise that anyone who adheres to it post-Internet doesn't exactly seem like the most rational person on Earth? You have to contort your mind into a million little knots in order to make Mormonism sensible.

not one? Hardly. From a religous standpoint there is plenty that makes sense. Unless you think are religion is nonsensical.

I would agree that there is a lot that makes sense when viewed from within the Mormon worldview and cosmology. From outside of it, however, I believe that almost everything you might propose as perfectly sensible melts away into insensibility. I'm not talking about things like the idea that one should be charitable (makes sense in and out), not hurt others, not murder or steal from other people, etc.

I'm talking about things like God being a glorified mammal, who reproduces sexually with his glorified mammal wives. That makes perfect sense when viewed from within the Mormon cosmology, and makes no sense at all when viewed from outside of it and instead from within, say, a secular scientific cosmology.

That God should choose to speak to humankind on Earth by appointing a man to stand up and explain to everyone else that God visited him and deputized him to be his mouthpiece, and they should all listen to what he says and regard his words as coming from the Lord. From within the LDS cosmology and worldview, that makes perfect sense. You know, "surely the Lord God will do nothing, save he reveal his will through his servants, the prophets." From outside of the LDS cosmology, this really doesn't make any sense.

[_Coggins7]

There doesn't seem to be one damn Mormon on here worth engaging with seriously about the church.

There are several, but pehaps it is the case that serious engagement is not your forté?

Nehor seems like a nice enough guy - but that's probably because he doesn't seem to take the church all that seriously.

I don't perceive that to be the case.

BCSpace sounds like a total pothead, spontaneously inventing pure nonsense and believing it as though it were a collection of the most profound insights ever.

bc is an intelligent and knowledgeable individual regarding Church doctrine and teachings. His various theories regarding tertiary issues relative to such doctrines exist at the periphery of LDS theology, and he, as I, is trying to work through some of the stickier problems, such as BYs teachings about Adam, the nature of the creation etc. None of it affects core, settled doctrine. Just because he flummoxes you periodically is no reason to label his arguments "pure nonsense"

Coggins sounds like one of those older inactive guys who just sits around reading church books, fancying himself a real expert on everything, a guy who's gotten just to that point where Mormonism seems to make sense, but hasn't taken that next step of analysis...

You're problem Tal, is that you just don't get it. I don't go to Church except periodically, but I wouldn't call myself "inactive" in the traditional sense. I'm active in missionary work, I do my home teaching, and work on myself in the meantime. I do read Church books on occasion, but most of my reading is not directly Church related, and when it is, in all likelihood it will be the scriptures. The Church has made perfect sense to me since a very young age, and my testimony of its truth predates even that. I have done far, far more analysis Tal, of Church doctrine, philosophy, and teachings, than you ever have and, given your generally intellectually shallow approach to Gospel teachings and issues surrounding them, it would not surprise me to see this state of affairs continue indefinitely into the future (as your thread here proves). Based upon a retrospective of your posts and general approach since you begin posting here, its quite possible that I've forgotten more Church doctrine, and the philosophical implications of them, then you've ever known.

For reasons of charity, Wade's comments probably shouldn't even be responded to, ever. I've never seen Ray A produce one original, thought-provoking comment on Mormonism, ever. Charity - 'nuff said.

Wade really, really, sends you folks off because he carefully and critically explores and questions the psychological crux of anti-Mormon criticism--a perfectly justifiable exercise, but one that's bound to start the juices flowing, especially among the exmos (for what are, to me, fairly obvious reasons). No one dare look at the Gorgon directly.

Where are the Mormons you can have a rational conversation with about Mormonism?

I dare you Tal, to give it a try with me. I defy you to do it. Let's see if your money is where your mouth is. I've said over and over again that it is the critics here who have created a desert for serious, ratoinal debate, and I've shown again and again that I'm quite willing to enter into such discussion if others will meet me halfway.

Let's see if you're up to it. Start a thread. Then, when Scratch, or someone of that ilk, starts to derail it, we can move it somewhere else until that gets derailed. My personal email is coggins59@alltel.net We can discuss the issues you have privately if you wish (interestingly, for all my infamy here, no one has yet emailed me to discuss things one on one). I don't duck and cover like Scratch and hide behind a veil of anonymity. I'm right here.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Because your opening posts are lessons in unfocused verbosity, and then you rarely do much more than post an opening post.

As I recall, in the past, I offered to go mano to mano on any point you wished. After all, I am a multiple-published FARMS author, multiply-published in my professional field, a former college (well community) professor and admitted to the US Supreme Court and have appeared there. But, you demurred. You just like to pick your adversaries.

Start a new OP; try to limit your bleh to one particular topic, and let's have at it.

I hadn't read this post before I responded to Tal above, but I now notice that the gist of it is the same.

So Tal, not only is a line drawn in the sand by yours truly, but by rc as well. I'm sure Charity or bc would be happy to engage in an extended, closely reasoned, serious debate on some point of another.

[_Imapiratewasher]

I am LDS. Getting a decent conversation out of me is a challenge, unless I am talking with a person face to face and about Maths, Physics or Philosophy, where the conversation in always progressive and idea's are shared rather than criticised. I can talk loads and intuitively about most things I think I have come to understand or feel. But writing is totally different. My English is rather poor and processing of text is somewhat difficult. So the point of this is, don't look to me for a decent conversation! Hehe.


Pirate.

I love our conversations, Pirate. Yet, we've never discussed LDS. :)

Awe thank you. I can discuss LDS if you like, but I'd rather in the Old Testament forum as there is a stigma about here that gives me a brain block.

[_Coggins7]

I would agree that there is a lot that makes sense when viewed from within the Mormon worldview and cosmology. From outside of it, however, I believe that almost everything you might propose as perfectly sensible melts away into insensibility.

But all you're pointing out here, in essence, is that perceptions vary as world view, experience, and expectations vary. As I've said many times before, that which we do perceive is predicated upon that which we are able, or capacitated to perceive and conditioned by our perceptual expectations.

I'm talking about things like God being a glorified mammal, who reproduces sexually with his glorified mammal wives. That makes perfect sense when viewed from within the Mormon cosmology, and makes no sense at all when viewed from outside of it and instead from within, say, a secular scientific cosmology.

Scientific cosmology has nothing to say, one way or the other, about the nature of God, and does not have the perceptual or intellectual tools to say it. So of course, looking at the Gospel from within a world view that cannot really even make cognitive or perceptual contact with spiritual things, it all looks like nonsense. Paul says as much in the New Testament.

That God should choose to speak to humankind on Earth by appointing a man to stand up and explain to everyone else that God visited him and deputized him to be his mouthpiece, and they should all listen to what he says and regard his words as coming from the Lord. From within the LDS cosmology and worldview, that makes perfect sense. You know, "surely the Lord God will do nothing, save he reveal his will through his servants, the prophets." From outside of the LDS cosmology, this really doesn't make any sense.

The problem here is that it not making sense from within the reference frame of another worldview tells us nothing regarding the legitimacy of that worldview, or whether the perception of the Gospel not making sense from within that reference frame is not as much a function of the deficiencies in that world view as it is a claimed deficiency in Gospel cosmology.

[_antishock8]

There are several, but pehaps it is the case that serious engagement is not your forté? I don't perceive that to be the case. bc is an intelligent and knowledgeable individual regarding Church doctrine and teachings. His various theories regarding tertiary issues relative to such doctrines exist at the periphery of LDS theology, and he, as I, is trying to work through some of the stickier problems, such as BYs teachings about Adam, the nature of the creation etc. None of it affects core, settled doctrine. Just because he flummoxes you periodically is no reason to label his arguments "pure nonsense" You're problem Tal, is that you just don't get it. I don't go to Church except periodically, but I wouldn't call myself "inactive" in the traditional sense. I'm active in missionary work, I do my home teaching, and work on myself in the meantime. I do read Church books on occasion, but most of my reading is not directly Church related, and when it is, in all likelihood it will be the scriptures. The Church has made perfect sense to me since a very young age, and my testimony of its truth predates even that. I have done far, far more analysis Tal, of Church doctrine, philosophy, and teachings, than you ever have and, given your generally intellectually shallow approach to Gospel teachings and issues surrounding them, it would not surprise me to see this state of affairs continue indefinitely into the future (as your thread here proves). Based upon a retrospective of your posts and general approach since you begin posting here, its quite possible that I've forgotten more Church doctrine, and the philosophical implications of them, then you've ever known. Wade really, really, sends you folks off because he carefully and critically explores and questions the psychological crux of anti-Mormon criticism--a perfectly justifiable exercise, but one that's bound to start the juices flowing, especially among the exmos (for what are, to me, fairly obvious reasons). No one dare look at the Gorgon directly. I dare you Tal, to give it a try with me. I defy you to do it. Let's see if your money is where your mouth is. I've said over and over again that it is the critics here who have created a desert for serious, ratoinal debate, and I've shown again and again that I'm quite willing to enter into such discussion if others will meet me halfway. Let's see if you're up to it. Start a thread. Then, when Scratch, or someone of that ilk, starts to derail it, we can move it somewhere else until that gets derailed. My personal email is coggins59@alltel.net We can discuss the issues you have privately if you wish (interestingly, for all my infamy here, no one has yet emailed me to discuss things one on one). I don't duck and cover like Scratch and hide behind a veil of anonymity. I'm right here.