THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. KA has explicitly stated that she deleted all the commentary. IN OTHER WORDS, she eliminated any and all "spin." ONLY THE FACTS REMAIN, not the spin.
Are we finally on the same page?
Can facts be presented in a Vacuum?
Ex-Mormon Missionaries
-
_Jason Bourne
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Jason Bourne wrote:Can facts be presented in a Vacuum?
Yes, they can be.
"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?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
_Trevor
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7213
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm
Jason Bourne wrote:The fact that the Church does not disclose stuff does not make is ok for the other side to be as unbalanced.
So what is she supposed to reveal, the very same things the LDS Church does? Just what is your definition of balanced, anyway?
“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.”
-
_Jason Bourne
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
Trevor wrote:Jason Bourne wrote:The fact that the Church does not disclose stuff does not make is ok for the other side to be as unbalanced.
So what is she supposed to reveal, the very same things the LDS Church does? Just what is your definition of balanced, anyway?
Read my comments on the thread. I think I have been fairly clear.
No Dr Shades, most facts cannot be presented in a vacuum especially ones that can be contraversial.
-
_Trevor
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7213
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm
Jason Bourne wrote:Read my comments on the thread. I think I have been fairly clear.
No Dr Shades, most facts cannot be presented in a vacuum especially ones that can be contraversial.
So you have. I simply do not agree with you. Rough Stone Rolling is not fair and balanced either. As much as I like the author, the book is on some level fundamentally apologetic in nature. Fair and balanced might be giving the person both Brodie and Bushman, but imagining that Bushman alone is a fair and balanced approach is just not fair or balanced.
“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.”
-
_Jason Bourne
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
Trevor wrote:Jason Bourne wrote:Read my comments on the thread. I think I have been fairly clear.
No Dr Shades, most facts cannot be presented in a vacuum especially ones that can be contraversial.
So you have. I simply do not agree with you. Rough Stone Rolling is not fair and balanced either. As much as I like the author, the book is on some level fundamentally apologetic in nature. Fair and balanced might be giving the person both Brodie and Bushman, but imagining that Bushman alone is a fair and balanced approach is just not fair or balanced.
Well there you have it. I would be happy to give them both books. Let them Read Bushman, Brodie, faith promoting and faith demeaning.
-
_Trevor
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7213
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm
Jason Bourne wrote:Well there you have it. I would be happy to give them both books. Let them Read Bushman, Brodie, faith promoting and faith demeaning.
Square deal, Jason. You're a real Mensch. And, I am taking a break from being a juvenile jackass tonight in order to say this.
“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.”
-
_Jason Bourne
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
Trevor wrote:Jason Bourne wrote:Well there you have it. I would be happy to give them both books. Let them Read Bushman, Brodie, faith promoting and faith demeaning.
Square deal, Jason. You're a real Mensch. And, I am taking a break from being a juvenile jackass tonight in order to say this.
Thanks Trevor. You are a pretty decent fellow as well!
-
_Pokatator
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:38 pm
Well I have waited until this thread seemed to wane before interjecting.
How would it be to combine the concepts of this thread with the "Stop Harvesting Those Records" thread?
Some Exmo's believe just as strongly as the Mo's that proper and informed baptism is important to salvation. This is a checkmate. So, how would a compromise sound? The Mo's get the names of the dead and we get the names of the living. The church missions open their books and give us all the names of their contacts. They can baptize the dead and we will give an informed and truthful presentation on the "Plan of Salvation" to the living?
How would it be to combine the concepts of this thread with the "Stop Harvesting Those Records" thread?
Some Exmo's believe just as strongly as the Mo's that proper and informed baptism is important to salvation. This is a checkmate. So, how would a compromise sound? The Mo's get the names of the dead and we get the names of the living. The church missions open their books and give us all the names of their contacts. They can baptize the dead and we will give an informed and truthful presentation on the "Plan of Salvation" to the living?
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace
bcspace