Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_Kishkumen]

Actually, it is also an organization that forbids its members to approach its central leadership with any questions of a doctrinal nature, is it not? Somehow I think that Kishkumen may have had that in mind in his post.

Oh, he undoubtedly knew that, but he prefers to drop a few more choice insults. He is a model Mopologist. He is everything Simon wishes to become, but will never attain.

[_Simon Belmont]

Do you feel that would account for his never-ending cries of bigotry and persecution, and his taking umbrage at anyone daring to claim to understand what "his" church teaches?

Did you, Liz, a believing Mormon, find it humorous to contemplate the Savior, while in the Garden of Gethsemane, forming a vagina so He could be raped trillions of times? Was that just a snappy comeback to a critic of the Restored Gospel? Do you think that would be a good one-liner to start off a talk in sacrament meeting?

Or are you just saying that Simon Belmont's entire presence on this board is a manifestation of Poe's Law?

Darth J., it was you who blasphemed, not I.

Here is what you said (emphasis mine):

Christ suffered this woman's afflictions so that even though she actually experienced the pain and trauma of being raped, he vicariously experienced it, too, and that way they both suffer,

This one small word is what damns your argument. You see, what this sentence means is either 1) both suffered vicariously, or 2) both suffered physically. Regardless, by saying "too" you are exactly equating the woman's suffering with Christs suffering.

[_Darth J]

Maklelan:

Since the LDS Church has no credo, no cathechism, and an open canon, how is the idea of "official doctrine" even a meaningful concept?

Versus

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 47#p397547

Simon:

I am aware that subtlety is wasted on you, so I will just let our viewers at home know that I was being sarcastic about the Moplogist talking point that the Church has no creed or cathechism. That's why I brought it up to Maklelan, who is, like you, only regurgitating Moplogist dogma ("official doctrine" in this instance). If the Church had no creed or catechism, a temple recommend interview would not be possible. And that's before we talk about the Thirteen Articles of Faith.

The fact that you chose to link to a post where I took issue with mfbukowski saying that the Church has no set standard by which people are judged---as if you have caught me contradicting myself---was a nice demonstration of your utter obliviousness, though.

[_sock puppet]

Do you feel that would account for his never-ending cries of bigotry and persecution, and his taking umbrage at anyone daring to claim to understand what "his" church teaches?

Did you, Liz, a believing Mormon, find it humorous to contemplate the Savior, while in the Garden of Gethsemane, forming a vagina so He could be raped trillions of times? Was that just a snappy comeback to a critic of the Restored Gospel? Do you think that would be a good one-liner to start off a talk in sacrament meeting?

Or are you just saying that Simon Belmont's entire presence on this board is a manifestation of Poe's Law?

Darth J., it was you who blasphemed, not I.

Here is what you said (emphasis mine):

Christ suffered this woman's afflictions so that even though she actually experienced the pain and trauma of being raped, he vicariously experienced it, too, and that way they both suffer,

This one small word is what damns your argument. You see, what this sentence means is either 1) both suffered vicariously, or 2) both suffered physically. Regardless, by saying "too" you are exactly equating the woman's suffering with Christs suffering.

Simon, you'd get kicked out of Pharisee school for that one.

[_Kishkumen]

Simon is a blasphemer.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, you'd get kicked out of Pharisee school for that one.

Perhaps, sock puppet.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, though, if Darth J. simply added an extraneous word where none was intended.

[_Darth J]

Maklelan:

Since the LDS Church has no credo, no cathechism, and an open canon, how is the idea of "official doctrine" even a meaningful concept?

Why don't you ask the church? They're the ones who recently defined it. I would point out that the church needs to be able to define beliefs that are binding on the membership.

If I ask the Church, how can I know that the answer I get is official doctrine?

That is, assuming, without proof, that "official doctrine" is a term of art that the Church itself has adopted.

It has used it in a number of publications. I don't see any reason to insist the phrase or the concept have not been adopted by the church.

No, see, the way that burden of proof works is that in a disputed claim, you don't get to rest on "I don't see any reason to think otherwise."

Who decides what is taught in official LDS curricula and publications, Maklelan? Is the most likely answer:

(a) the Maxwell Institute
(b) FAIR
(c) the Correlation Committee

What is the point of this question?

I want to know where you got this idea of "official doctrine" having a discreet, technical meaning in the LDS Church (as opposed to apologetics about the LDS Church).

[Guest]

-

[_Darth J]

Darth J., it was you who blasphemed, not I.

Here is what you said (emphasis mine):

Christ suffered this woman's afflictions so that even though she actually experienced the pain and trauma of being raped, he vicariously experienced it, too, and that way they both suffer,

This one small word is what damns your argument. You see, what this sentence means is either 1) both suffered vicariously, or 2) both suffered physically. Regardless, by saying "too" you are exactly equating the woman's suffering with Christs suffering.

Simon, I am sure that in your solipsistic existence, things like this seem really clever to you.

"Too" refers to both parties suffering. By specifying that the woman "actually experienced" it, and Christ "vicariously" experienced it, I distinguished between the manner in which each party suffered. The manner in which each party suffered, which I distinguished in the statement that you are yourself raping beyond recognition, is what you have misrepresented for God knows how many pages now, and led to the beautiful, reverent imagery you suggested of trillions of penises penetrating the Only Begotten Son of God.

[_Shulem]

It's simple, sock. Doctrine Trump's policy, except where policy defines doctrine. Rinse and repeat.

Brethren and sisters, we welcome you to the temple, and hope you find joy in laughing at the the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 which have been provided by Joseph Smith the Mormon translator and sexual lover of the secret circle of women who give all that they have to offer to to The Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-day Women.

Come forth Joseph, and pull your pants down. Ooh yeah.

Paul O