Jersey Girl wrote:Be honest, did I misinterpret those two statements as somehow contradictory? If so, please explain...
He said that Stak wasn't "automatically" disqualified, but that still leaves open the question of his qualifications. So, there isn't an actual contradiction there.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Simon is the only poster I'm aware of who has ever actually openly praised SHIELDS.
"[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
Doctor Scratch wrote:Simon is the only poster I'm aware of who has ever actually openly praised SHIELDS.
Well, it is excellent fodder for students of religion, psychology, and anthropology. So, as a resource for understanding Mopologetics, it is hard to top. Is that praise? I think so.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Not being LDS doesn't automatically disqualify a person from commenting on things LDS.
Not being LDS and having very little experience with LDS people, combined with often using the made-up word "mopologist" makes me call into question whether that person had the background necessary to wistfully look back upon "the days..." past of Mormonism, or of Mormonism current.
Simon Belmont wrote:Not being LDS doesn't automatically disqualify a person from commenting on things LDS.
Not being LDS and having very little experience with LDS people, combined with often using the made-up word "mopologist" makes me call into question whether that person had the background necessary to wistfully look back upon "the days..." past of Mormonism, or of Mormonism current.
That's all.
Has it ever dawned upon you, Simon, that all words are made up.