skippy the dead wrote:I see no power trip. Is that what you see? No wonder you're in such a defensive posture. Let it go.
It's a total power trip.
I don't see it. Unless your demands to see the stuff is your own power trip. Whatever.
LoaP wrote:This is quite interesting, in that I have only been asking to look over KA's materials and said nothing about editing or critiquing them for anyone. But of course, being Mormon, you all know my intents and purposes.
I'm sorry - I didn't realize that you really had sincere questions about the church that you hoped the materials would answer. Well of course she should send them to you!
Oh wait. I don't think that's really the case.
So tell me - why do you want to see them if not to critique? What are your intentions?
(by the way it matters not to me that you are Mormon. I don't typically ascribe general attributes to a group of people based on their religious practices. That has nothing to do with my opinion of you. But you keep building up your own personal persecution complex!)
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)
Excuse me! I asked a question based on your OP. I did not know reading the entire thread was required before posting a post. But it is still not clear after reading through the thread. Well it is really. you give them negative information that is designed to discourage them from pursuing the LDS Church. you do not give fair and balanced information or anything that might respond Old Testament refute the information. In such a case you are as guilty as you think the LDS Church is in withholding information. You give them your version of the truth. Too bad.
How about giving them a book like Rough Stone Rolling then letting the chips fall where they may?
Yeah, and the Missionaries are certainly giving a "fair and balanced" assessment of Mormonism, right???
KA is simply trying to balance out the 1/2 truths that the missionaries are feeding the investigators.
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
skippy the dead wrote:I'm sorry - I didn't realize that you really had sincere questions about the church that you hoped the materials would answer. Well of course she should send them to you!
Oh wait. I don't think that's really the case.
So tell me - why do you want to see them if not to critique? What are your intentions?
To critique them for myself. Here's how the exchange could have gone:
KA- Yeah, I have these packets I made that I hand out to neighbors when the missionaries stop by. me- Oh, that's interesting. Can I see your material? KA- Certainly. me- Thanks! My email is such-and-such.
The end.
But you keep building up your own personal persecution complex!
Do Mormons typically do that?
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Well then I guess you'll have to pencil something else in for today.
LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Skippy the Dead wrote:But you keep building up your own personal persecution complex!
Do Mormons typically do that?
Not all, no. But there are some that revel in it. And apparently that's you (hence my inclusion of "personal"). I never had it, my family doesn't have it, none of my LDS friends had it. Some LDS members DO have it, however.
(I totally knew I could get you to bite on that.)
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)
LifeOnaPlate wrote:Here's how the exchange could have gone:
KA- Yeah, I have these packets I made that I hand out to neighbors when the missionaries stop by. me- Oh, that's interesting. Can I see your material? KA- Certainly. me- Thanks! My email is such-and-such.
The end.
You were editing while I was responding.
If that's how you wanted the exchange to go, then maybe your first response shouldn't have been:
LoaP wrote:Is there anything you offer, aside from a counter-explanation? In other words, your work appears to be in preventing, breaking down, etc. Is there a positive message you offer? (I realize some believe that a lack of Mormonism is positive.)
You already made your position clear. I would not have wanted to send it to you either.
But I guess that's just because I love power trips.
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)
skippy the dead wrote:(I totally knew I could get you to bite on that.)
I guess I should have included some [tongue-in-cheek] [/tongue-in-cheek] tags.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
LifeOnaPlate wrote:The point is my interest in KA's selection.
And she just made clear that her entire selection is contained within the Richard Packham tract. Case closed. So, what's the answer to my question?
Keep playing your role of villainizing me, though, because after all, I am a Mormon. My intentions must be utterly devious.
??? What on earth is that about? I merely asked you if there is/was anything factually inaccurate in a certain website. Nowhere did I villainize you or describe your intentions as devious.
Methinks your persecution complex is overcoming you.
"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?"
LifeOnaPlate wrote:Here's how the exchange could have gone:
KA- Yeah, I have these packets I made that I hand out to neighbors when the missionaries stop by. me- Oh, that's interesting. Can I see your material? KA- Certainly. me- Thanks! My email is such-and-such.
The end.
You were editing while I was responding.
If that's how you wanted the exchange to go, then maybe your first response shouldn't have been:
LoaP wrote:Is there anything you offer, aside from a counter-explanation? In other words, your work appears to be in preventing, breaking down, etc. Is there a positive message you offer? (I realize some believe that a lack of Mormonism is positive.)
You already made your position clear. I would not have wanted to send it to you either.
But I guess that's just because I love power trips.
I see that question as completely unrelated to me wanting to read through KA's materials. I asked a very open question, I don't see how it "makes my position clear" other than that it seemed to me at face value that KA's message is against something rather than for anything particularly.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Dr. Shades wrote:And she just made clear that her entire selection is contained within the Richard Packham tract. Case closed. So, what's the answer to my question?
And what, exactly, is in that selection?
??? What on earth is that about? I merely asked you if there is/was anything factually inaccurate in a certain website.
Asked and answered.
Nowhere did I villainize you or describe your intentions as devious.
Good grief, Shades, I was being facetious.
Methinks your persecution complex is overcoming you.
So I'm told by everyone who knows me.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Dr. Shades wrote:And she just made clear that her entire selection is contained within the Richard Packham tract. Case closed. So, what's the answer to my question?
And what, exactly, is in that selection?
??? What on earth is that about? I merely asked you if there is/was anything factually inaccurate in a certain website.
Asked and answered.
No, it wasn't. You dodged by saying that the site could have been "fleshed out" via the use of some (presumably) pro-LDS sources. You did not state whether or not anything on the site was factually inaccurate.