Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's based in LDS scriptures, specifically D&C 121:38. . . . You don't know the scriptures and it shows.

The use of the term in D&C 121:38 echoes the narratives of the calling of the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus, as chronicled in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles.

[_marg]

It's based in LDS scriptures, specifically D&C 121:38. . . . You don't know the scriptures and it shows.

The use of the term in D&C 121:38 echoes the narratives of the calling of the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus, as chronicled in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles.

You mean to say the term "prick" is used in scripture?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You mean to say the term "prick" is used in scripture?

Yes. But not in the way harmony uses it.

It doesn't refer to people in the scriptures.

Nobody is addressed as a "prick" in the scriptures.

I don't know whether harmony's self-defense on this point is sincerely misguided or merely sophistic.

[_harmony]

Are you referring to the "self-righteous arrogant prick"?

That's the one.

That hurt, huh. Well, I'm sorry for calling you a self-righteous arrogant prick, and I promise to not do it again... until you behave that way again.

But please keep in mind: I'm the one, kicking against the prick. The prick... that would be you (when you behave such that you deserve that label). This part would be you again: persecuting the Saints (the Saint... that would be me), fighting against God... (that would be you).

I suppose that means my remark is doctrinal. That's enough to stop me right there!

And the simple fact remains that I've never used language even remotely like that to characterize you -- neither in terms of sheer offensiveness nor in terms of commenting on your character, which I haven't done.

I see. You don't think calling a card carrying, calling holding, tithe paying, active Latter day Saint a "nominal member" is at all offensive? You don't think characterizing me as "an unbeliever" is at all characterizing me as something I am not? (it's on page 3 of this thread, in case you forgot)

And that's just on this thread! I don't keep a dossier of all your offensive comments and snide remarks to me, Daniel. You make them often enough, I can just use the fresh ones.

Or is it just offensive when someone for whom you have literally no respect calls you on your behaviors? What is it about that remark that causes you to bring it up, 10 years... yes... 10 years! after I first made it?

The "letter of the law" guy would deny members like me temple recommends. The "spirit of the law" guy would give them out every time, hoping that the member would use them often.

We disagree.

On what? the dichotomy itself? Or my application of it to you and Jason?

Your mission, according to what you said earlier, is keeping the temple from being tainted by members like me.

I've said absolutely nothing like that.

You said:

That said, though, I do take my role as a gatekeeper to the temple very, very seriously. In fact, I regard it as sacred -- hesitant though I am to use such a term on this message board.

You're the gatekeeper; I'm the defiant member who refuses to bow down and worship the Brethren properly. And issuing me or members like me would taint the temple. Nevermind that I worship Christ... that's not good enough, because I don't worship the Brethren. So you, in your appointed role as gatekeeper, have to keep the members like me out.

Or did you forget you said that?

You don't want me to. And you wouldn't acknowledge it if I did. You can't.

I have little or no idea what the last three sentences mean.

If you intend to suggest that I'm somehow threatened by you . . . Well, I'll leave it there.

I don't know where you get this stuff from? Threatening you? Me? Not hardly.

You said I don't know you; I said you don't want me to. And even if I am right about everything I've ever said about you, showing I do indeed know you, you wouldn't acknowledge it... you can't. You can assert that you can know me from my words on this bulletin board, but you can't acknowledge that if you can know me, I can know you.

No threat at all. I don't know where that came from. Geez, Daniel!

[_harmony]

Daniel knows there is no sexuality related to that comment.

Daniel has always assumed that that was precisely the sense in which it was intended.

It's deeply offensive.

Well, Daniel needs to stop assuming. Geez... get off your Ladder of Inference and start all over. Criminy! I don't make sexual remarks!

I know the scriptures reasonably well, and I've never heard anybody described as a "prick" in the scriptural sense.

You need to get out more. It's a very handy little verse.

I also think it's silly to claim that I'm "persecuting the saints."

You hate being one-upped, don't you?

I'm a Saint... or at least a Latter day Saint. You've been persecuting me for years. It counts.

I thought you always knew what I was referencing. How odd to think you didn't. My admiration of your knowledge of our scriptures has just taken a hit.

[_harmony]

Oi Vay, this is not a battle, you are using vulgar language, I dislike it. And I doubt very much that the D&C uses vulgar language.

I am not using vulgar language. I am quoting scripture. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[_marg]

Ok so I got the scripture 121: 38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to akick against the pricks, to bpersecute the saints, and to cfight against God.

I see now Harmony why you use the word "prick" quite freely. From my pespective as a highly principled atheist who knows no Mormon scripture it sounds horrible. Perhaps that is how the term "prick" first came about in an unsexual way, but in the context of modern day language it's taken on a sexual interpretation..and really Harmony it doesn't sound good to use it such that it can be interpreted like that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm the defiant member who refuses to bow down and worship the Brethren properly.

Do you actually imagine that you score points somewhere with such transparent straw men?

I've never suggested anything that could be reasonably construed as "worship" of the Brethren.

And issuing me or members like me would taint the temple.

I've never said anything, ever, about your "tainting the temple."

What purpose is served by inventing such stuff and trying to put it in my mouth?

Nevermind that I worship Christ... that's not good enough, because I don't worship the Brethren.

Even after the lapse of fifteen seconds, I still haven't suggested worshiping the Brethren.

But I also wouldn't admit Catholics and Methodists and Baptists to the temple, despite their worship of Christ.

Another straw man.

So you, in your appointed role as gatekeeper, have to keep the members like me out.

In my appointed role as gatekeeper, I have to determine who can enter the temple and who can't. I do it multiple times each week. I take it very seriously.

I'm really not sure, harmony, that it's possible for you and me to have a serious conversation. I don't believe we've ever had one.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't really think that DCP is in any position to get all bent out of shape over the fact that he has been called a "prick," regardless of whether he insists that it is synonymous with "penis" or whether it means what Harmony clearly intends it to mean: a person, usually male, who acts in an unpleasant way. I say this because Professor Peterson has been pretty free and loose in terms of tossing around extremely coarse and offensive terms like "douche bag" and "jack ass."

[_harmony]

You mean to say the term "prick" is used in scripture?

Yes. But not in the way harmony uses it.

It doesn't refer to people in the scriptures.

Nobody is addressed as a "prick" in the scriptures.

I don't know whether harmony's self-defense on this point is sincerely misguided or merely sophistic.

Do I need to quote? Geez, Daniel.

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson--That the rights of the priesthood are inseperably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled, only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, or vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the Saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediastely begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

D&C 121:34-41.

Daniel was/often still is a prick in the sense that I have to kick against him, because he persecutes me... and in so persecuting me, a Saint in God's own church, he fights against God.

I'm sure Daniel doesn't like to think of himself as a prick, in the Biblical sense, so he chooses to assume I'm simply being vulgar. Not so. Don't project onto me.