Daniel Peterson wrote: As to the matter of GoodK and his stepfather and my alleged viciousness in that case, we've already discussed this for about 50-60 pages on five or six occasions. I'm content with what I've alread said about that, and I do not plead guilty. I realize that GoodK is angry, but I don't grant that his perspective on the matter is the final word on it.
Just dropping by to say that Daniel C. Peterson is guilty of pissing on my privacy, pitting my step-parent against me, and continuously reporting my posts to my step-father.
O.J didn't plead guilty either, {Moderator edit by harmony: personal attack}.
Sorry, Good K, but stuff posted to a public message board isn't very "private." I missed you at Arby's the other night and haven't heard back from you. Please send me a PM.
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
Harmony, If you call to Church headquarters and ask to speak with the office of X Apostle, you will get his secretary. You may then schedule an appointment to address these concerns, at a time you are both available. I would simply suggest you use as little hostility as you can with the secretary. But unload both barrels with the Apostle if you want.
It really is that easy. If for some reason it doesn't work, PM me and I'll hook you up.
Daniel Peterson wrote:As I say, GoodK is angry (increasingly so, it rather oddly seems, and increasingly insulting).
I would offer an alternative hypothesis. One that posits I am simply and steadily reminding the crowd here - each time you insist otherwise - of your passive aggressive trampling through my family life. If you are ever insulted in the process, I am all the more pleased.
I, like a few others here, am not fooled by the benign and victimized persona you parade online. I've had the benefit - like Quinn - of really feeling the weight (no pun intended) of your presence in my life.
Daniel Peterson wrote:GoodK continues to be angry, as I've said.
I would offer an alternative hypothesis. One that posits I am simply and steadily reminding the crowd here - each time you insist otherwise - of your passive aggressive trampling through my family life. If you are ever insulted in the process, I am all the more pleased.
I, like a few others here, am not fooled by the benign and victimized persona you parade online. I've had the benefit - like Quinn - of really feeling the weight (no pun intended) of your presence in my life.
Daniel Peterson wrote:As I say, GoodK is angry ....
He has every right to be angry, in light of your abhorrent behavior towards him and his father. And, yet, you still haven't apologized. Well done, Bishop Dan.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Daniel Peterson wrote:As always, I wish you the best.
I'm sure this is exactly what you were wishing when you snitched on GoodK to his dad.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Can we leave this fascinating subject and get back to those who live by the light of their own conceit?
Which isn't to say we don't all do that, just that I was specifically referencing the Brethren, not Daniel or GoodK.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
