From My Informant: Oaks "Apoplectic" at FAIR & FARMS

[_gramps]

Of course, it is all bunk. But a lot of Mormons have been deceiving themselves for so long, that they don't have a clue what is up and what is down, what is black and what is white. I believe the Apostles fit into that category. I am not sure you do.

I just wanted to point out that this comes off as juvenile considering your accusation of lying isn't backed up with anything conclusively. You wish to paint it black and white, it seems, as if you are right and good and others are wrong and bad, but that just isn't reality. To generalize about a whole religion, attempting to implicate each and every member of it, is what is known as bigotry. I hope you reconsider your position and the words you decide to type.

I just wanted to point out that this comes off as juvenile considering your accusation of lying isn't backed up with anything conclusively.

What would be conclusive for you, Stem?

You wish to paint it black and white, it seems, as if you are right and good and others are wrong and bad, but that just isn't reality.

What is exactly being painted black and white?

Also, sometimes I am right and good and others are wrong and bad, and sometimes vice versa. So, how am I not right here? I am not sure I get you.

To generalize about a whole religion,...

Point out exactly where I did that.

.

..attempting to implicate each and every member of it, is what is known as bigotry.

And this is another example of your very poor reading skills.

I hope you reconsider your position and the words you decide to type.

I hope you will read and think and try your best to comprehend, before you post next time. But I guess by past evidence, I have little to hope for.

[_stemelbow]

What would be conclusive for you, Stem?

uh...something conclusive. Saying you know he lied because he says he doesn' tknow what another implies to know isn't really exposing a lie as much as exposing your inability to defend your accusation.

My apologies in missing your "most" qualifier. I speed through sentences sometimes. Poor reading techniques for sure. I don't know if I have too much of a problem with comprehension, when it comes down to it, though, I do fail to comprehend sometimes. Please forgive me my weaknesses.

[_gramps]

What would be conclusive for you, Stem?

uh...something conclusive. Saying you know he lied because he says he doesn' tknow what another implies to know isn't really exposing a lie as much as exposing your inability to defend your accusation.

My apologies in missing your "most" qualifier. I speed through sentences sometimes. Poor reading techniques for sure. I don't know if I have too much of a problem with comprehension, when it comes down to it, though, I do fail to comprehend sometimes. Please forgive me my weaknesses.

You are forgiven, my dear brother, Stem.

Hey, a question for you, however. Do you, as a believing member and one who supports the Brethren, really think that a Senior Apostle wouldn't know something, like what I reported above, that a Junior Apostle testified of knowing, and others in the sealing room also experienced? Is that possible in your nuanced world? If so, how would that be possible?

[_Doctor Scratch]

One of the things I found telling on the companion MDD thread(s) is that the bulk of apologetic support has been given to Hudson, rather than to Elder Oaks. Now, if it's true that there is a difference of opinion between an academic and an apostle, why is it that Scott Lloyd, Deborah, and others are siding with the academic? Whose ark are they steadying, exactly?

[_Gadianton]

I just wanted to point out that this comes off as juvenile considering your accusation of lying isn't backed up with anything conclusively.

Now that's interesting "stemelbow", given your recent thread where you claim:

In order to accept that burden all possibilities must be extinguished. Some might suggest possibililties are infinite

Since there are infinite possibilities, as you suggest, then it is not possible for him to back up his claim conclusively. His only recourse is to be like you and:

It seems apparent to me that many here think that means I am obligated to prove the claims of the church. No. My claim is belief--which I admit I can't prove.

Gramps's belief is that Oaks is a liar. I for one agree with him. Plus, I think Oaks is a fool. You think I am obligated to prove that claim? No. My claim is belief--which I admit I can't prove. Get used to the fact that the men you pay 10% of your income to are liars, frauds, and fools.

[_Joseph Antley]

Scratch, your blog looks dead. What gives?

[_The Nehor]

Scratch, your blog looks dead. What gives?

Three people here, the small board of a make-believe university, and his mom wasn't enough readership to justify its existence?

[_stemelbow]

You are forgiven, my dear brother, Stem.

Hey, a question for you, however. Do you, as a believing member and one who supports the Brethren, really think that a Senior Apostle wouldn't know something, like what I reported above, that a Junior Apostle testified of knowing, and others in the sealing room also experienced? Is that possible in your nuanced world? If so, how would that be possible?

Elder Oaks said he does not know what life will be in the next life, when you're married to more than one wife for eternity. That does not mean he doesn't have any knowledge regarding whether those who are sealed for eternity will be together for eternity or not.

The other apostle you are reporting about here, in the way you reported it, implies that he knows something about marriage in the next lfe for those who are sealed to more than one. Not really. he says he knows specifically that the previous sealings accomplished for certain people will last eternally.

1. Oaks says he doesn't know what life will be in the next life, not that he doesn't know that those who are married for eternity will be together for eternity, in multiple marriage situations.
2. The other apostle could ver well take the same position as Oaks but in this case have had specific revelation.
3. Its completely possible for a junior apostle to know something that a senior apostle doesn't know about.

Take your pick. any of the options, still on the table, explain how Oaks is not lying. And all are quite reasonable if you ask me.

[_stemelbow]

Gramps's belief is that Oaks is a liar. I for one agree with him. Plus, I think Oaks is a fool. You think I am obligated to prove that claim? No. My claim is belief--which I admit I can't prove. Get used to the fact that the men you pay 10% of your income to are liars, frauds, and fools.

I’m thinking you have misunderstood my point regarding there remains possibility. I don’t try to prove my point by the fact that there are possibilities. I’m suggesting that in these discussions, for those who wish to prove the Church false, whatever that would mean, they have to extinguish possibility in order to accomplish their claims of “the Church is false”. That’s a tall order. In my efforts to respond to criticism all I really need to do, in order, most often, to disprove the criticism is suggest there are other possibilities then what the conclusion draws. In this case, the conclusion is Oaks is a liar. I have already made known the possibility, reasonably as far as I’m concerned, that Gramps’ conclusion of liar is inconclusive—at least from the data presented. Hopefully that makes more sense.

[_madeleine]

It is an approach that will never work, IMNHO. If all things are possibly true, then there is no reason to disbelieve anything....seems like a foolish way to go through life.