BrianH wrote:Apparently challenging the claims of Mormonism on a board entitled "Mormon Discussions" constitutes an insult to those here, who appear to be mostly disgruntled, bitter, whining ex-Mormons.
BH>>Look, PLEASE ignore me, if you intend to just follow the pattern here with all the usual moaning and complaining that so characterizes this whole forum. For my part I intend to continue to post challenges to the claims of Mormonism in what is likely to be a futile effort to ses if anyone can manage to present a cogent argument in support of those claims, or until I just get board with all the crybabying around here.
R>Challenging the claims of Mormonism does not constitute an insult. If you haven't noticed, you've successfully obliterated whatever message you had by making you and your insulting and hostile attacks the subject, not Mormonism. I may be a whining wimp, but at least I'm smart enough to know how to approach a debate without alienating all sides.
I am not the one who made ME the subject of this thread, R. I responded substantively to the OP and was quickly best with a barrage of lame quibbling (Your own "how many is a bunch"), personal attacks and mockery for the effort.
In fact, the wimpy mocking and jeering began even before I was aware that this thread even exsited!
Moreover, only a couple of posts in this entire thread thus far has constituted an actual response to my first post here instead of a collection of childish insults.
BrianH wrote: Does that rule apply to everyone here?
-BH
.
No.
That's news to me.
It's not news to me. In fact, any cogent review of this thread will quicly show that I was being mocked here even before I knew this post was up, let alone had said anything here ...and it has continued.
But don't worry. I can take it. Its apparent however that others can dish it out but CAN't take it at all.
Runtu wrote:In his responses to me, he's restricted acceptable evidence to that found in the Bible. Kind of pointless, if you ask me.
That is either a lie or a simple reading error on your part, R. I explicitly said that I do NOT restrict sources to the Bible when asking Mormons to show us some reason to think that Jesus taught the supposedly "restoreed" doctrines of the LSD church.
Runtu wrote:In his responses to me, he's restricted acceptable evidence to that found in the Bible. Kind of pointless, if you ask me.
That is either a lie or a simple reading error on your part, R. I explicitly said that I do NOT restrict sources to the Bible when asking Mormons to show us some reason to think that Jesus taught the supposedly "restoreed" doctrines of the LSD church.
-BH
.
You are an angry, angry Bible thumper. Have you thought about watching a bowl game or two and calming down. I find something such as the activity I suggested makes me feel better.
BrianH wrote:It's not news to me. In fact, any cogent review of this thread will quicly show that I was being mocked here even before I knew this post was up, let alone had said anything here ...and it has continued.
Have you ever met a guy named stemelbow?
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Now if BrianH will simply give us some reason to take his word for early Christian doctrine regarding baptism for the dead over the scholar Mike Reed has referenced in the companion thread, we will be getting somewhere.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
BrianH wrote:It's not news to me. In fact, any cogent review of this thread will quicly show that I was being mocked here even before I knew this post was up, let alone had said anything here ...and it has continued.
Have you ever met a guy named stemelbow?
Now, now....Stem is a much gentler soul than Brian, at least from what I have read.
I do think, however, that Brian is basically a pretty nice guy. He just got off on the wrong footing here.