Who is Jeremy Orbe Smith...

[_Stormy Waters]

After seeing the exchange Jeremy had with Shades I don't there is anything wrong with what Jeremy did. He just asked someone to remove a link. He didn't try to force them to remove it.

[_Shulem]

If I didn't make myself clear enough in the above post, it is simply that the Church of David Bokovoy, The Church of Jeremy Smith, the Church of Joanna Brooks, or the Church of Loyd Ericson, would not look at all - or hold to the same core truth claims - as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, and that church, under those conditions, would effectively cease to exist.

Which, after all, is the very point, isn't it?

Does it bother you that Joanna Brooks is featured on MST?

For crying out loud. After all these years and Droopy still can't spell the name of the church correctly. Someone needs to tell Droopy to capitalize the t in "the". For God's sake, Droopy, get it right, boy. You can't even spell the name of your church!

Paul O

[_Droopy]

Does it bother you that Joanna Brooks is featured on MST?

Yes, it does a bit, because I don't think she was properly vetted before placing her "testimony" on that website. I've mentioned this before. Brooks is certainly a Mormon, and certainly a degreed academic (the fundamental focus of that website), but her vague, featureless, rambling testimony of impressionistic feelings and perceptions of LDS culture, tradition, and fundamental, yet curiously nebulous central LDS doctrines do not strike me as an LDS testimony in any salient or clear way.

A good working knowledge of her personal philosophical and political views, however, available at her own website and at Religion Dispatches, will provide anyone curious about this with a good deal of insight into just why her "testimony" appears and has the form that it does.

[_Shulem]

After seeing the exchange Jeremy had with Shades I don't there is anything wrong with what Jeremy did. He just asked someone to remove a link. He didn't try to force them to remove it.

I agree, he didn't do anything wrong. He just made a request. Anyone can do that.

Paul O

[_Buffalo]

The problem isn't that you use elevated language, the problem is that you do it amateurishly and for the purposes of appearing pedantic. Also, holy redundancy, Batman.

At your 7th - 8th grade reading and literary composition level, I doubt very much that you even know what "elevated language" is. In any case, I'm not going to respond to any of your usual smarmy intellectual vacuities, but just wanted to let you know I was aware that you were still indulging yourself in them.

See, that was more or less coherent. It's clear that when you go into thesaurus mode you don't fully understand the messages you are posting. You lose track of what you're trying to communicate when you engage in paragraphs-long sentences full of words you cribbed from your vocabulary builder calendar. You should just stick to the language you understand rather than artificially inflating it to appear pedantic. There's nothing sadder than shooting for pedantry and missing by a wide mark.

[_Buffalo]

Does it bother you that Joanna Brooks is featured on MST?

Yes, it does a bit, because I don't think she was properly vetted before placing her "testimony" on that website. I've mentioned this before. Brooks is certainly a Mormon, and certainly a degreed academic (the fundamental focus of that website), but her vague, featureless, rambling testimony of impressionistic feelings and perceptions of LDS culture, tradition, and fundamental, yet curiously nebulous central LDS doctrines do not strike me as an LDS testimony in any salient or clear way.

A good working knowledge of her personal philosophical and political views, however, available at her own website and at Religion Dispatches, will provide anyone curious about this with a good deal of insight into just why her "testimony" appears and has the form that it does.

It just goes to show that Daniel Peterson and others like him who don't understand gospel purity as you do are on a long, slow slide toward apostasy.

Right?

[_Droopy]

It just goes to show that Daniel Peterson and others like him who don't understand gospel purity as you do are on a long, slow slide toward apostasy.

Right?

I have not asked Daniel Peterson what his overall views and perceptions of Joanna Brooks are. I like Daniel and much of his apologetic work, but I did not think to ask him first before forming my own conclusions and perspective as to Joanna Brooks. Further, the Mormon Scholars Testify website is not a part of the Church, and I'm not beholden to it, or its creators, for my own views, but the the Church and the living oracles at its head.

[_Buffalo]

It just goes to show that Daniel Peterson and others like him who don't understand gospel purity as you do are on a long, slow slide toward apostasy.

Right?

I have not asked Daniel Peterson what his overall views and perceptions of Joanna Brooks are. I like Daniel and much of his apologetic work, but I did not think to ask him first before forming my own conclusions and perspective as to Joanna Brooks. Further, the Mormon Scholars Testify website is not a part of the Church, and I'm not beholden to it, or its creators, for my own views, but the the Church and the living oracles at its head.

Yeah, but Peterson must be slinking toward apostasy, giving an apostate like Brooks a venue for her apostate views, right?

Also, Peterson says he has quasi-Universalist leanings. Definitely suspicious.

[_Droopy]

Where's my CFR Bluff?

[_stemelbow]

If I didn't make myself clear enough in the above post, it is simply that the Church of David Bokovoy, The Church of Jeremy Smith, the Church of Joanna Brooks, or the Church of Loyd Ericson, would not look at all - or hold to the same core truth claims - as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, and that church, under those conditions, would effectively cease to exist.

Which, after all, is the very point, isn't it?

lol. Whatever.