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

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't attack Scratch.

I don't know who he is. I don't know about his work, his income, his publications (if any), or any of that.

I react to Scratch's attacks on me.

[_dblagent007]

To me, the other crazy thing about this thread and many others like it is that the "critics" of the LDS Church can just stand back and watch the members tear each other's eyes out (eg: Scratch and harmony vs. DCP).

What?!?!?! Scratch is a member????? Master Mahan himself is a member???? Whoa, that does shake me to the core.

[_Nightingale]

To me, the other crazy thing about this thread and many others like it is that the "critics" of the LDS Church can just stand back and watch the members tear each other's eyes out (eg: Scratch and harmony vs. DCP).

What?!?!?! Scratch is a member????? Master Mahan himself is a member???? Whoa, that does shake me to the core.

I know. I was beyond surprised when I read that. So much so that I asked Scratch to confirm it. He did, if I understood him correctly.

[_Nightingale]

I don't attack Scratch.

I don't know who he is. I don't know about his work, his income, his publications (if any), or any of that.

I react to Scratch's attacks on me.

I'm not sure if this is in response to what I said about LDS here attacking each other. If so, specifically, I was referring to my observation that harmony and Mr. Scratch, both church members, attack you, also a church member. We non-LDS "critics" can just sit back and watch the spectacle.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. (Right when I was talking about communicating effectively, sheesh!)

I would say that in many ways you show remarkable restraint. (But who knows what you're doing behind the scenes). {{Jenn Kamp}}

I just happen to notice that a lot of your posts and a great deal of energy, it seems, are expended on responding to fellow LDS. That seems upside-down to me. But carry on. I read and learn.

[_Dr. Shades]

What?!?!?! Scratch is a member????? Master Mahan himself is a member???? Whoa, that does shake me to the core.

Apologetics =/= Mormonism.

[_antishock8]

I love the fact that Harmony has now said prick at least a dozen times, and the word "c.u.n.t." has been bandied about, too.

My post is moved to outdarkness for "hostility". Weird.

[_Nightingale]

I love the fact that Harmony has now said prick at least a dozen times, and the word "c.u.n.t." has been bandied about, too.

My post is moved to outdarkness for "hostility". Weird.

If anti thinks that "prick" is vulgar then that settles the matter. :)

Re "hostility" - yeah, that's what happens when moderation gets very subjective. Hostility to one is wit to another. Granted, moderation is going to be subjective by definition, making it tough for mods and posters. As for consistency or equal treatment, that decreases as subjective moderation increases. It's all in how you come across to each reader and there is amazing variety in that.

Re harmony's terminology, I am amazed that a church person would use such a vulgar term, apparently without realizing it, while I, a heathen (or whatever camp I'm in with, as an ex-LDS) wouldn't dream of using that expression, especially to a fellow church member. But I know I am very sensitive about language. No matter how much swearing I hear, there are some words and expressions that still make me wince every time. I know it's crazy to get bent out of shape over a word. It's all in the meaning you ascribe to it. I am working on desensitizing myself. (Slow process).

[_marg]

To me, the other crazy thing about this thread and many others like it is that the "critics" of the LDS Church can just stand back and watch the members tear each other's eyes out (eg: Scratch and harmony vs. DCP). I'm still amazed by that. Maybe it's more honest, though, than in my world where believers stick together and generally don't rip into each other in front of non-believers. (We save that for church meetings, lol).

I agree with you assessment of the word "prick". Context is important to determine the meaning of the word. In the context used in the Bible and Book of Mormon the word is used metaphorically to refer to authority whov knows what is best for the individual. In the Bible and Book of Mormon's case it's because of their connection with God, so ultimately the authority knows what's best in speaking/guiding on behalf of God. But if one used the phrase in a non religious sense, then parent, teacher, police etc would be similar. They have the rightful authority because of experience, position, etc. to determine what is best for the individual. No matter how Harmony tries to spin it, that's not how she applied it. And I think she knows full well how it came across, but she figured she could get away with it, by claiming she's using like the Book of Mormon does.

As far as members fighting amongst themselves, it makes sense in particular with the Mormon church members as the church excommunicates those who don't follow certain rules,or don't hold particular beliefs. So rules and beliefs adhered to is extremely important to being an accepted member.

[_Dr. Shades]

I love the fact that Harmony has now said prick at least a dozen times, and the word "c***" has been bandied about, too.

Do not circumvent the word censor. Allow it to do its work.

My post is moved to outdarkness for "hostility". Weird.

Your deraliment was hostile, not so much your post.

Your intent was to disrupt a thread in progress, not to add content.

[_Mister Scratch]

Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory. Also, I think that we would probably expect that more of them would be called to their offices on the basis of spiritual gifts, rather than their business and administrative acumen. (Recall that DCP suggested once on the MADboard that Heavenly Father's chief consideration in picking his servants is whether or not they will make good corporate officers.)

Indeed, things have come a long way. Whereas B. H. Roberts was dismissed for urging the Brethren to let go of the notion that the Book of Mormon was strictly historical, now the Chairmen of the Board actively request that the Church's well-compensated apologists formulate silly theories and revenge strategies in order to bolster the Church's increasingly shaky spiritual foundations.