Why Dehlin, What Big Teeth You Have!

[_Droopy]

Droopy:

Should we look into your employment history in the same way that you're looking into Dehlin's stuff?

What employment history?

Tell me all about it, Kevin. I'm taking notes.

[_Droopy]

Droopy:

Should we look into your employment history in the same way that you're looking into Dehlin's stuff?

Go ahead. What's keeping you?

[_Droopy]

What's that, at least four thread derails, back to back, based upon a fictional criticism regarding a fabricated past history made up by Scratch (I'm presently working on a legal response to Scratch's claims, in which he will be given more than ample time to prove his allegations) for one of his more brazenly morally retarded forays into character assassination.

That Ronald McGraham is running behind him, yapping and snarling, is only to be expected. None of these moral invertebrates impresses me in the slightest. This recent fictional portrayal of me as born with a silver spoon in my mouth and living the bulk of my life in ease is so knee slapping in its descent into neurotic fantasy that, at first glance, I thought it was a bit much, even for the Posse and the Kevin Klux Klan

But, none of these folks are to be outdone.


We will see.

[_Droopy]

That's classic LDS apologetic defense, but droopy takes it to a new level. He uses this on just about every issue out there.

Its also true. Much of this stuff, including the peepstone and face-in-a-hat boilerplate is nothing but warmed over Walter Martin. Either in its misrepresenation or gross cartoonization of LDS history, its been long debunked for what it is - anti-Mormon polemical bigotry.

The Adam-God boilerplate, likewise, has long had intellectually substantive responses that intelligent, open minded interlocutors can mull over while still savoring the blessings and truths of the gospel.

Plural marriage is a difficult question, but I went through that struggle myself, and I didn't become John Dehlin. Polyandry? Fiction. There's not a shred of evidence such ever occurred. "Spiritual wifery," as understood in that era, had nothing to do with actual connubial relations, but was understood as a strictly spiritual sealing to be fulfilled only in another world and another life, long distanced from this one. Joseph has no descendents from any of his plural wives in any case - save Emma.

Fiction. Bluster. Bravado. Nothing.

He seems to think that as long as someone at FAIR or FARMS has tried to "address" an issue, then that is all that needs to be said. He still thinks the Book of Abraham issues have been "debunked" and he likes to use outdated FARMS materials that have long since been abandoned!

The KEP dependency theory is critically weak, along a number of dimensions. It makes little sense based upon Joseph's own stated and observed practices regarding the other scripture he produced, and involves, at its core, a massive argument from ignorance. We know a large corpus of ancient material existed and was in the possession of the Church is now lost. That which we have has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham in any obvious sense. We need that missing material to come to any compelling determination here. The KEP dependency theory is purely conjectural, notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing to the contrary.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have responded numerous times that Dehlin does not have an agenda to lead people out of the church but rather to support people wherever they are at.

What a very convenient and self affirming interpretation of Dehlin's behavior and words, Jason.

It is not self affirming you dolt. Yes dolt. Take your self righteousness that comes from the idea that you really think you are the one and only choosen priesthood of God for a minute Droopy. The world will then not be your enemy with a boogy man on every corner. Any way my view is not self affirming it is factual. Course it does not fit your tar and feather mentality.

That he may want/wish the Church were more tolerable of diversity I think I would agree with. But I don't think he has an agenda to make the church change.

That you don't even see the above statement to be logically inconsistent is quite telling, to say the least.

I want the Church to do and be lots of things that it likely never will. Things like open and honest about its history, transparent with its finances and dropping the one year waiting period for a temple worthy couple that may want a civil ceremony so non member families can see them married but I don't have an agenda to make the Church change. Ultimatly I have to decide whether or not I can tolerate personally the things I do not like or not and make my own decisions. But I understand I have little influence over what the Church does.

Its also a vicious sophistry, and I want you to know that I do see through it

No you don't. You see into it what you want to. How sad for you.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What's that, at least four thread derails, back to back, based upon a fictional criticism regarding a fabricated past history made up by Scratch (I'm presently working on a legal response to Scratch's claims, in which he will be given more than ample time to prove his allegations) for one of his more brazenly morally r******* forays into character assassination.

That Ronald McGraham is running behind him, yapping and snarling, is only to be expected. None of these moral invertebrates impresses me in the slightest. This recent fictional portrayal of me as born with a silver spoon in my mouth and living the bulk of my life in ease is so knee slapping in its descent into neurotic fantasy that, at first glance, I thought it was a bit much, even for the Posse and the Kevin Klux Klan

But, none of these folks are to be outdone.


We will see.

Calm down, Droopy. As I've said, repeatedly: if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and I apologize. That said, I have good reasons--what I was told by somebody, along with your own comments--to believe that you've had a somewhat checkered work history. Why you think this is "libelous" is, frankly, beyond me. No one--or, at least, not me--said you were "born with a silver spoon in [your] mouth," and again, it's hard to figure out why you think this is "libelous."

[_Jason Bourne]

Its also true

.

Keep telling yourself this Droop. I know you need to do so. It is risky to face the truth.

Much of this stuff, including the peepstone and face-in-a-hat boilerplate is nothing but warmed over Walter Martin.

Do you deny Smith used a peepstone and hat in his bringing forth the Book of Mormon?

The Adam-God boilerplate, likewise, has long had intellectually substantive responses that intelligent, open minded interlocutors can mull over while still savoring the blessings and truths of the gospel.

Adam God has not been debunked and you have never succeeded in doing so.

Plural marriage is a difficult question, but I went through that struggle myself, and I didn't become John Dehlin.

So what? That makes you right and him wrong?

Polyandry? Fiction.

You are delusional.

There's not a shred of evidence such ever occurred.

Bull.

"Spiritual wifery," as understood in that era, had nothing to do with actual connubial relations, but was understood as a strictly spiritual sealing to be fulfilled only in another world and another life, long distanced from this one. Joseph has no descendents from any of his plural wives in any case - save Emma.

So what? Do you argue Smith did not have sexual relations with his wives? All his successors did and D& 132 commands those practicing to have children.

Fiction. Bluster. Bravado. Nothing.

Yes you are doing this well. The evidence against what you say is overwhelming. Read Bushman, Mormon Enigma, Mormon Polygamy by Von Wagner, In Sacred Lonliness.

You really are a crappy apologist.

[_Chap]

...

Much of this stuff, including the peepstone and face-in-a-hat boilerplate is nothing but warmed over Walter Martin.

Do you deny Smith used a peepstone and hat in his bringing forth the Book of Mormon?


....

Do you know, I think he probably does.

Lonely guy, Droopy

[_Cylon]

If John Dehlin and Joanna Brookes ever do a joint project, Droopy's brain is gonna melt out his ears....

Umm, they already are doing a joint project, Brooks is on the board of directors of Mormon Stories.