Some Schmo wrote:A poll like this, to me, is like a poll on the best smelling pile of crap.
Sorry, but they're all just piles of crap. I don't have favorites.
That's more of the lovely prose we should expect from you and other MDB posters, Schmo. Thanks for the reminder. Its almost as if we forgot seeing how generally nice people have been lately--well except to Schryver and Schryver to others.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Nightlion wrote:I would have to defend the use of Mopologetics.
a·pol·o·get·ics [uh-pol-uh-jet-iks] Show IPA –noun ( used with a singular verb ) the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of christianity.
Every sect of Christianity should have a separate designation. Since Christianity is not ONE it cannot be defended as ONE.
Now, if say, someone were to be in defense of the Christianity that came by way of the Restoration of the power of godliness, then there is only one guy capable and proven doing that.......ME! Yawn. Nobody cares.
So mopologists is aptly named because they are defending latter-day Mormonism. And I mean the latest version of Mormonism. The fallen version. The arrogance of the Gentiles version. Selling guided tours and books of fables Mormonism.
Well, Nightlion, by that logic every sect of Christianity should have a compound word associated with apologetics:
stemelbow wrote: That's more of the lovely prose we should expect from you and other MDB posters, Schmo. Thanks for the reminder. Its almost as if we forgot seeing how generally nice people have been lately--well except to Schryver and Schryver to others.
That was as nice as I could put it. When it comes to Mormon apologetics, it's impossible for me to be honest and nice at the same time.
I've never been one to look at BS mental contortionism favorably.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:That was as nice as I could put it. When it comes to Mormon apologetics, it's impossible for me to be honest and nice at the same time.
I've never been one to look at BS mental contortionism favorably.
You're improving and you didn't even know it. You very nearly correctly spelled "Mormon" and you correctly used the word "apologetics" and did not use the made up "mopologetics."
Some Schmo wrote:That was as nice as I could put it. When it comes to Mormon apologetics, it's impossible for me to be honest and nice at the same time.
I've never been one to look at BS mental contortionism favorably.
You're improving and you didn't even know it. You very nearly correctly spelled "Mormon" and you correctly used the word "apologetics" and did not use the made up "mopologetics."
There is hope for you yet.
"...nearly correctly spelled..."?
I never misspelled Mormon. An 'm' is an 'M' is an 'm'.
by the way, do you know what "mopologetics" means? If so, the word is functional. All words are made up; when they start to convey meaning to others, they are functional made up words.
"Flipicolalsee" is a made up word, and since it conveys no meaning to anyone else, it is not functional yet.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:That was as nice as I could put it. When it comes to Mormon apologetics, it's impossible for me to be honest and nice at the same time.
I've never been one to look at BS mental contortionism favorably.
That comment is a real keeper.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Some Schmo wrote:"...nearly correctly spelled..."?
I never misspelled Mormon. An 'm' is an 'M' is an 'm'.
A proper noun should be capitalized. Also, you used to place a strange period in the middle of the word. Just one more minor correction and you'll have it! Capitalize that M!
by the way, do you know what "mopologetics" means? If so, the word is functional. All words are made up; when they start to convey meaning to others, they are functional made up words.
No. Words evolve over time -- long periods of time.
Juliann and other TBMs have appropriated the term "Mopologist." I don't understand why Simon has such a problem with it, apart from the fact that he apparently wants to lump the more vicious apologists in with the legit scholarly types, such as Bushman. I guess it's about getting Peterson, Midgley, et al. to ride on the coattails of these other guys?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14