The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Runtu]

Funny, I remember learning a lot from Runtu's series on Postmodernism and Mormonism. I also remember finally feeling exasperated at Runtu's patience with bukowski, from whom I learned very little in comparison.

Anyway, I think, so that we can learn everything necessary to understand spiritual experience, mfbukowski ought to put together a small six-piece series on The Three-W Trilogy and Mormonism. I'd love to read it and I bet we could all better understand where he is coming from.

How about it, mfbukowski?

Thanks for the kind words, gramps. I'm glad someone learned something from my rambling posts. I think it would be great for Mark to outline his philosophy and how he applies it to Mormonism.

[_gramps]

Runtu wrote:

Thanks for the kind words, gramps. I'm glad someone learned something from my rambling posts. I think it would be great for Mark to outline his philosophy and how he applies it to Mormonism.

Wouldn't it?

I really am wondering how Whitehead fits in to all of this. mfbukowski hasn't really, unless I've missed it, explained that part, has he? Is it Whitehead's Process and Reality stuff? It certainly couldn't be Whitehead's collaborative work with Russell, I'm surmising.

[_gramps]

ELF1024 wrote (From the All Native Americans thread):

I believe we can say with some scientific authority that SOME or at least a MINIORITY of the Native American's have DNA that can be traced back to one of the tribes of Israel.

That is based on the scientific knowledge we have today. That doesn't rule out that at some point we may find more, or that at sometime in the future we will find out we are mistaken and have to throw out all the results thus far.

I believe those are the cold hard man-made facts of the situation.

However, I do believe that there are a great many of the Native American people who will be able to trace their lineage back to the Lehi-ites at some point. I did not say all, as I find the word "All" to be far too encompassing.

In any case we are unable to prove that at this point; and will need to wait for either a) Futher scientific knowledge B) The millenium when all will be revealed.

This guy has got to be a troll. That is pretty funny. The whole thread is quite entertaining, actually.

[_Blixa]

Speaking of entertainment, the mad analogizer is at it again:

The precept of equality touches on a number of threads here, most particularly discussions about the law of consecration and SSM. As such, I think it important to address it as its own topic here.

Those of us who lived during the civil rights movement, and who were educated in the liberal-oriented public schools, may tend to be of the mind that equality is necessarily good, and discrimination is necessarily bad.

We may tend to think that way more as a knee-jerk reaction rather than because we have carefully thought things through and have come to that reasoned conclusion.

The intent of this thread, then, is to provide a venue for more carefully thinking this issue through.

So I ask, "Is equality necessarily good and discrimination necessarily bad?"

To get the discussion rolling, lets take the question to the logical extreme, and see if you agree with the following equalities: up = down, legal = illegal, square = circle, righteous = evil, strong = weak, fast = slow, parent = infant, heterosexual = homosexual, etc. etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

later the proviso of

people capable of reaching beyond the narrow confines of their own sckull

is mentioned for participation in the thread.

Which leads to this exchange:

Equality is not necessarily good. In fact, I believe as a goal, it’s a major problem with our society today.

This is precisely the point I hoped to make clear, and so I appreciate you mentioning it early on in the discussion. It is just that I believe some people may not as yet understand why that may be so, and as such I plan to flesh it out over the course of further discussion.

[Guest]

In response to Jeff Ricks of Post-Mormon.org, Daniel C. Peterson stated:

"I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims. I don't think it's supposed to do so, either, and, accordingly, I reject your claim that it has failed to do so." Daniel C. Peterson 12/04/09

I kid you not.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

On Dec. 04, 2009, in response to Jeff Ricks of Post-Mormon.org, Daniel C. Peterson stated:

"I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims. I don't think it's supposed to do so, either, and, accordingly, I reject your claim that it has failed to do so."

I kid you not.

Quoted. For. Truth. And people wonder why some of us consider Mopologists to be heretics...

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_moksha]

Not too long ago someone told me they could tell a person was living the gospel by their countenance.

Yeah sure, like they could easily screen out OCD or the need for oven mitts.

[Guest]

Joseph Smith and polygamy? That is ancient history, I don't need the lectures of apostates and professional Anti-Mormons to tell me the "real truth" as if the Church is lying or deceitful about anything. The only liars are the damned apostates that rehash the Anti-Mormon stories started by Bennett, Brodie, and others who had an axe to grind against the Church, who seek to shed innocent blood. It is amazing that there are still those who thirst for the blood of Joseph Smith and try to defame him just as the apostates who killed him did. No there are no real historical problems except with those who believe the gossip and mud slinging inventions of so-called historians that try to bring the prophets down a notch and seek to confound the faith of those who may be struggling to gain a testimony. Well I have passed over that bridge years ago, your pathetic accusations or the ramblings of professional Anti-Mormon hacks are not going to bother me a bit. For your information I was not born yesterday, and I am not a novice to the LDS Church, I know all the damnable slander and lies thrown against it since it's founding and they will not prosper anymore now in the "internet" age (I like to refer to it as the "dis-information age") where any cretien with a web page can start their own blog and write whatever they want against the truth, any more than they did then, the faithful will not be turned against the Church by the testimonies of traitors. But it will stand, the heathen may rage, and the sinners may rail and mock but they will not stand because the spirit of the Lord is more powerful than all the lies and frauds invented by the wicked one.

And as for those valiant young men and women sent out to thrash the nations (of which I am honored to say I was one) they are not the scholars or the learned of the world that are called forth to preach:God does not want his servants polluted with philosophies of men, or "foolish or doubting questions" but He wants them to teach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Missionaries are not sent out to argue with men or women or corrupt minds who do not desire to know the truth, but to declare the truth in meekness and faithfulness, not with a doubting mind, but with the sheild of faith.

Holy crap.

[Anonymous]

You may have found the anti-intellectual quote to end all anti-intellectual quotes, Buffalo. How long will it be before someone here accuses me of wanting to shed innocent blood, or thirsting for Joseph Smith's? The level of violence in the rhetoric would be alarming if it were not so traditional a part of Mormonism's discourse of defense. Those statements could have been written in 1838 or 1857 as equally as 2011.

[_Runtu]

Holy crap.

+10

It's been a while since I've heard such an angry screed so utterly devoid of reason.