Howdy & Introduction

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_LDS Missionary
_Emeritus
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:34 pm

Post by _LDS Missionary »

Pokatator wrote:Welcome LDS Mishy

Love the site. I really got a kick out of "Sex in the Temple", I get asked that so many times. All I can say is that the stuff that goes on there is so far out and bizzzzar that that there is no need to make anything up, the truth is enough. I like your style.

Sincerely,
Pokatator

PS Coggy is a closet drinker, but only when he is alone or with someone.


Pokatator, love the avatar. Thanks for visiting my site. You're absolutely right. The truth is enough. Always has been.
_LDS Missionary
_Emeritus
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:34 pm

Post by _LDS Missionary »

CaliforniaKid wrote:I found your website amusing. However, I did notice this:

Joseph Smith says, "This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broken up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live." (Abraham, Explanation to Facsimile No. 2, Figure 5)

I think you botched the reference.


First, thanks a ton for catching that. You're absolutely right, the reference is from Joseph Smith, January 5, 1841, Words, p.60. I'll go make a quick correction in a sec.

Darn those errors of men.

Second, thanks for checking out the site.

Just made the correction.
_LDS Missionary
_Emeritus
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:34 pm

Post by _LDS Missionary »

Bond...James Bond wrote:Welcome to the board LDSMissionary!

Hope you enjoy your stay!


Thanks for the warm welcome. Love the avatar. You folks pick the best avatars, I swear.
_LDS Missionary
_Emeritus
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:34 pm

Post by _LDS Missionary »

Bond...James Bond wrote:
LDS Missionary wrote:
gramps wrote:I am really enjoying your site.

Nice stuff! Fun writing. Welcome :)


Muchas gracias, and thanks for checking it/me out.


When talking to gramps you should greet him with "Guten..."

(He lives in Germania...land of brats, buxom blondes, and beer)


Very good information to have. Noted. :)
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Trevor wrote:
rcrocket wrote:
I, on the other hand, could risk everything. My field of specialty is particularly old school, as it were, and its powerful people are just stuffy enough not to look kindly on blogging and discussion board participation. Were this not the case, I would gladly use my full, real name. I have no other reason to protect my identity. I am quite happy to let people know what I think of the LDS Church, when they pursue the matter in private. My parents know my thoughts. My friends know my thoughts. I am not ashamed of who I am.

Unless your participation here constitutes a real threat to your professional viability, cram it. You are not a model of integrity or courage.


I neither like nor dislike you, but I admit that your style of writing and knowledge in some subjects has attracted my attention. But, think about your position and mine. I post with my real name. My real life is the same as my life on this board. My views with my in-person friends, my church, my family are the same as here. Integrity means not being a hypocrite, not hiding in the dark or behind a cloak. Courage means putting your name to your public persona.

Real courage is not demonstrated in your first paragraph I repeat above. You may be anonymous. You may feel secure in using anonymity to attack and belittle people with real names. But, God knows you. I hope that someday you will come around and know that there is no value to throwing turds on the roof of the synagogue at night because you hate Jews. The Mormon faith is a powerful testament to the mission of the living Christ; many believe and find solace in it; many thrive and help others with it. To continue to belittle it, anonymously, with occasional hits against real people, is deplorable. And god will sort that out in the end.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

rcrocket wrote:I neither like nor dislike you, but I admit that your style of writing and knowledge in some subjects has attracted my attention. But, think about your position and mine. I post with my real name. My real life is the same as my life on this board. My views with my in-person friends, my church, my family are the same as here. Integrity means not being a hypocrite, not hiding in the dark or behind a cloak. Courage means putting your name to your public persona.


My real life is the generally the same as it is on this board too, Bob. My colleagues know that I am an ex-Mormon. The only thing that I do not do is share my participation in online discussions with them. They know quite clearly how I feel about the LDS Church. Once again, I have no idea why you think you are somehow superior to me in this regard. The restriction that I feel is one of it not being professionally "cool" to participate in this kind of forum. That is all.

rcrocket wrote:Real courage is not demonstrated in your first paragraph I repeat above. You may be anonymous. You may feel secure in using anonymity to attack and belittle people with real names. But, God knows you. I hope that someday you will come around and know that there is no value to throwing turds on the roof of the synagogue at night because you hate Jews. The Mormon faith is a powerful testament to the mission of the living Christ; many believe and find solace in it; many thrive and help others with it. To continue to belittle it, anonymously, with occasional hits against real people, is deplorable. And god will sort that out in the end.


Pardon me if I do not take you to be a model of real courage. Only a coward like you would compare me unjustly to an anti-Semite, because you have the luxury of doing it from a distance. That is egregiously inflammatory rhetoric and completely baseless. It is like calling a Reformed Jew who vehemently criticizes an aggressive, orthodox Zionist an "anti-Semite." It is remarkable that you imagine you are courageous.

I do not believe in your God, Bob. The Mormon faith is a testament to many things, some of them genuinely positive, but it is not a powerful testament to a living Christ. The person Jesus died many centuries ago. All that lives of the Christ is the myth that was created in the aftermath of the man's death. If people find solace in that, fine. It does not place their thinking and behavior beyond criticism.

The fact that I criticize Mormonism, and poke fun at it, is legitimate and healthy in a free society. I do not march into ward buildings to belittle people's faith. I do not spend time on the bloggernacle or discussion boards with a clear devotional purpose. I have even taken down my blog. I only come here, where people like you choose to tune in and exchange blows. Sometimes I tune into and participate in other fora for apologists. You and they, sir, are fair game, not victims of some kind. And you certainly aren't some kind of hero in the cause of truth.

So take your self-righteous indignation to a place where people won't see it for the sham it is. Only your fellow apologists imagine that what you are saying here has any share of the truth.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

I do not believe in your God, Bob. The Mormon faith is a testament to many things, some of them genuinely positive, but it is not a powerful testament to a living Christ. The person Jesus died many centuries ago. All that lives of the Christ is the myth that was created in the aftermath of the man's death. If people find solace in that, fine. It does not place their thinking and behavior beyond criticism.


Trevor, while I'm sure you mean what you say here, this is really just the kind of Romper Room atheism common to militant secularism and bespeaks the simplistic, facile arguments Dawkins makes in The God Delusion. You might believe such claims, but you really cannot make them with any degree of certainty as no actual evidence exists documenting any such post crucifixion fabrications. It looks a good argument from the perspective of the a priori assumptions of metaphysical naturalism, but those who have not swallowed that particular earthworm are not delimited by it regarding what the range of possibilities might be.

Do you realize that your claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead are not empirical, or even logical claims, but claims implying your own metaphysical preconceptions about the universe?

The only way out of this thicket is, of course, the principle of revelation, through which that which is can be comprehended even though our own limited perceptions might imply otherwise from our own epistemological prism.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Coggins7 wrote:You might believe such claims, but you really cannot make them with any degree of certainty as no actual evidence exists documenting any such post crucifixion fabrications. It looks a good argument from the perspective of the a priori assumptions of metaphysical naturalism, but those who have not swallowed that particular earthworm are not delimited by it regarding what the range of possibilities might be.

Do you realize that your claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead are not empirical, or even logical claims, but claims implying your own metaphysical preconceptions about the universe?

The only way out of this thicket is, of course, the principle of revelation, through which that which is can be comprehended even though our own limited perceptions might imply otherwise from our own epistemological prism.


Coggins, why on earth should I seek revelation from your God? If you are any testimony to the results of that activity, may I ever stay resolved not to partake of the practice.

And, Coggins, you might take note of my use of the word "believe" in my post. I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that I have used the word believe, and I do not cast about for the added ego boost of the warm fuzzies you call revelation, which, I BELIEVE, amount to little more than you feeling good about what you believe. I feel sufficiently emotionally good not believing in claims (like the resurrection of Jesus) that have almost no evidence to back them up. That is where I get my endorphins.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Coggins, why on earth should I seek revelation from your God? If you are any testimony to the results of that activity, may I ever stay resolved not to partake of the practice.


I see that neither ad hominem attacks nor serious posts will alter your behavior one iota. What did I expect (slapping face repeatedly...)?


And, Coggins, you might take note of my use of the word "believe" in my post. I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that I have used the word believe, and I do not cast about for the added ego boost of the warm fuzzies you call revelation, which, I BELIEVE, amount to little more than you feeling good about what you believe.


Since it is apparent that you have no idea whatever what I have experienced, and have never experienced revelation yourself, what is it exactly you are criticizing?


I feel sufficiently emotionally good not believing in claims (like the resurrection of Jesus) that have almost no evidence to back them up. That is where I get my endorphins.


Whoever claimed that revelation had anything, uniquely or exclusively, to do with emotions?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Coggins7 wrote:I see that neither ad hominem attacks nor serious posts will alter your behavior one iota. What did I expect (slapping face repeatedly...)?


When you present arguments, then the rib poking will qualify as an ad hominem. Keep slapping, Coggy. You just might wake up.

Coggins7 wrote:Since it is apparent that you have no idea whatever what I have experienced, and have never experienced revelation yourself, what is it exactly you are criticizing?


Not the old "if only you had experienced revelation..." thing. Try something new, Coggy. I am pretty certain I experienced what Mormons think of as revelation. I simply no longer believe the theology that underpins it. And you know what, you have no idea what I have experienced or not either, so touche.


Coggins7 wrote:Whoever claimed that revelation had anything, uniquely or exclusively, to do with emotions?


Obviously I just did, numbskull.
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 04, 2008 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply