Please clarify what you mean by... I certainly will not sit idly by and have my faith insulted by the Brighamites.
Are you here to enter the discussion, Brent? Because that would be really cool, if you were.
(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.
Are you here to discuss Spalding, Rigdon and Smith? If so, count me in. Of course, I won't sit idly by if insulted either. What I may do, if you want to discuss the topic at hand, is to ask you if you have yet taken the time to read "Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism" by William H. Whitsitt. Now that we have this word print study to confirm Whitsitt's position, maybe someone like you will begin to look more closely at his work.
Are you here to discuss Spalding, Rigdon and Smith? If so, count me in. Of course, I won't sit idly by if insulted either. What I may do, if you want to discuss the topic at hand, is to ask you if you have yet taken the time to read "Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism" by William H. Whitsitt. Now that we have this word print study to confirm Whitsitt's position, maybe someone like you will begin to look more closely at his work.
Byron
Whoa. Do I detect a disturbance in the Force?
(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.
Are you here to discuss Spalding, Rigdon and Smith? If so, count me in. Of course, I won't sit idly by if insulted either. What I may do, if you want to discuss the topic at hand, is to ask you if you have yet taken the time to read "Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism" by William H. Whitsitt. Now that we have this word print study to confirm Whitsitt's position, maybe someone like you will begin to look more closely at his work.
My post was every bit as on topic as Dale's remark...
Uncle Dale wrote: I certainly will not sit idly by and have my faith insulted by the Brighamites.
Your bias is showing, my friend.
No, don't expect my participation in a thread where we can't ask serious questions of the chief interlocutor on the S/R theory.
Cheers,
</brent>
Series questions are always welcome. Calling RLDS faith experiences "zingers" and accusing serious participants of "playing games" is not. Since you are not known for such rhetoric, I doubt any of us will ever hear it from you.
I won't expect your participation -- but others might. You owe it to them to at least state your views; even if you have no more to say after that.
My post was every bit as on topic as Dale's remark...
Your bias is showing, my friend.
No, don't expect my participation in a thread where we can't ask serious questions of the chief interlocutor on the S/R theory.
Cheers,
</brent>
No need to assume the worst Brent. Your question was really not on-topic but more importantly the answer to it had been answered previously by Dale within the thread. In essence Dale had responded to an ad hom against him. While he could go on and elaborate further for you, not only is it off topic, but given that Dale spends much time addressing the actual issues, addressing off-topic issues already addressed seems a bit too much to expect. There have been many posts in this thread by critics against the Jocker's article and against the Spalding/Rigdon theory. Whatever position you take is welcome just as long as it stays on topic and isn't meant to wear Dale down unnecessarily with superfluous questions.
Not "assum[ing] the worst," just genuinely perplexed by your moderating style.
So Dale can post a remark that you consider "on topic," but asking him to clarify that remark is "off topic"? (Again, your bias is showing.)
Yet a subsequent post that completely lacks substance, but cheers Dale on, doesn't merit your "off topic" relocation program:
Heresy wrote: Uncle Dale, do you count the lurkers as participants here? If so, there are far more of us than you know who are fascinated by this discussion specifically and your work in general. Please keep up the research.
I've taken the liberty of sharing some of your posts with others. Is it acceptable to quote your work? I thought your earlier post here about all the conspiracies was pure poetry.
You'll understand if I think your words ring hollow.
You can eventually assign this to off-topic too. I think it will be a sad day if someone like Brent (and Dan Vogel if he hopefully joins later) decides to quit the discussion.
I believe there is moderator bias at work here too. For example, why was this post allowed to remain on the thread, and not very long ago:
ByronMarchant wrote:Manfredjinsinjin,
I take it that you consider the material (propaganda) published by FARMS is sometimes (or always) reliable.
Byron
Nothing personal against Byron, just pointing out some obvious bias at work here.