Gadianton wrote:I wonder, was the mob at Carthage performing what they thought was an academic review of Joseph Smith?
As inflammatory as this statement is, there is a substantive point to it. By devoting his life to promote the truth of the Book of Mormon based on his personal revelations, Meldrum has done little different from Smith. Many of those who were so offended by Smith's actions that they sought his life were acting on their sense of Joseph's heresy and departure from the true faith in claiming false authority. The NMI/FAIR posse has decided that it is its own Danite task to take down Meldrum for the sake of the LDS Church's fold. They may not be shedding actual blood, but they do not hold back on the rhetorical assault.
“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.”
Trevor wrote:The difference is that they presume to identify defects in his behavior as a member of the LDS Church and then use that as a criticism of his theory. By taking this job upon themselves, they clearly have stepped over the line of academic review and have essentially arrogated to themselves the Church's role in counseling its members.
I think Wyatt meant to say "Welcome to the world of ecclesiastical review."
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
The Dude wrote:I think Wyatt meant to say "Welcome to the world of ecclesiastical review."
Or, rather, welcome to the world of "pretended ecclesiastical review," since they do not officially represent the LDS Church.
“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.”
Trevor wrote:This is what Allen Wyatt has the nerve to say in his response to Meldrum:
Allen Wyatt wrote:Welcome to the world of academic review, Rod. Sometimes it is not a pleasant place when others–even others who are brothers and sisters in the gospel–take strong exception to what we have published and what we are promoting.
Allen Wyatt is right. When you play Mud Warfare, to have to expect to crawl around on the ground and get encrusted. If Meldrum does not wish to play this game, he should steer clear of the being in FAIR's line of sight.
moksha wrote:Allen Wyatt is right. When you play Mud Warfare, to have to expect to crawl around on the ground and get encrusted. If Meldrum does not wish to play this game, he should steer clear of the being in FAIR's line of sight.
If you replace "academic review" with "battle of the kooks," then I agree with you.
“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.”
Gadianton wrote:I wonder, was the mob at Carthage performing what they thought was an academic review of Joseph Smith?
OH. MY. GOD.
Jumpin' Jehosaphat!
Holy Christ on a STICK!!
I'll be damned if that wasn't the single greatest, most glorious, most poignant, most thought-provoking, most insanely insightful statement I've read in a very, very, VERY long time!
Congratulations on your wit & wisdom, Gadianton!
"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?"
Trevor wrote:This is what Allen Wyatt has the nerve to say in his response to Meldrum:
Allen Wyatt wrote:Welcome to the world of academic review, Rod. Sometimes it is not a pleasant place when others–even others who are brothers and sisters in the gospel–take strong exception to what we have published and what we are promoting.
Did I miss something here? When exactly did FAIR become an organ of the Academy, and not a collection of well-meaning amateurs who promote LDS apologia? Now he claims that their hatchet job of a review constitutes "academic review"? Unbelievable.
I love the juxtaposition in this response by Wyatt. On the one hand, he affirms that he and his colleagues are being unpleasant, and on the other hand he piously refers to 'brothers and sisters in the gospel.'
And I bet the irony never occurs to him.
Yes, playing the arsehole who sets out to attack his enemy's character is an act truly worthy of brothers and sisters in the gospel.
Why do I get the sense that we're looking at some inquisitors in embryo here?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."