Boring dead drama is boring and dead

[_LDSToronto]

Christ almighty this thread if ridiculous. One of you post the PMs or shut the F*** up.

H.

[_Pahoran]

Indeed. Pahoran is toast. I cheerfully predict that he won't be returning to this thread. MsJack made utter mincemeat out of him, and his only remaining option it to beat a hasty retreat.

Still think so?

Along similar lines, I notice you've abruptly stopped talking to me, and are now confining yourself to talking about me instead -- but only to people you trust to enjoy participating in echo chamber conversations with you.

Why is that?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_MsJack]

I am dodging nothing, and if you knew how to carry on a discussion in good faith, you would accept that fact simply because I am the sole world authority on what is in my mind, and you are in no position to gainsay my unique knowledge on the subject.

I am the sole authority as to my own motives, but that hasn't stopped you from accusing me of insincerity and trying to declare what my "true motives" are dozens of times now.

As will yours. For which you may one day be grateful.

I'm glad you have finally agreed that your behavior towards me was abusive. However, there is nothing I have ever said in private correspondence with you which would qualify as "abusive," and we both know it. This is why I am not ashamed of having any of it made known.

So long as you are accusing me of being the instigator here, I will make no modifications to my blog or the OP of this thread. You keep lecturing me on not dictating the terms of this or that, without realizing that you don't get to dictate the terms of how I respond to your persistent misuse of our private correspondence.

Actually Proverbs 15:1 is a Jewish text which we Christians have merely co-opted (or perhaps inherited) but I shall let that pass.

I didn't say it was a Christian text; I was referring to the practice of it as something Christians should do. Consider that next time you're on a "peacemaking" mission.

[_SteelHead]

Surely you know more than one sinless person?


By the theology you follow sub 8 year olds are sinless and innocent.

They are not sinless. Their sins are covered by the atonement of Christ, and when they reach the age of accountability, they are baptised "for the remission of sins", and from thence they begin to be accountable.

Try again.

From LDS.org

They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. [sinless] They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; [sinless] and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. . . .

“Truly it is one of the sweetest and most soul-satisfying doctrines of the gospel! It is also one of the great evidences of the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith. In his day the fiery evangelists of Christendom were thundering from their pulpits that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of infants not a span long because careless parents had neglected to have their offspring baptized. Joseph Smith’s statements, as recorded in the Book of Mormon and latter-day revelation, came as a refreshing breeze of pure truth: little children shall be saved . Thanks be to God for the revelations of his mind where these innocent and pure souls are concerned!” ( “The Salvation of Little Children,” Ensign , Apr. 1977, pp. 4, 7 .)

[_Cicero]

Up until recently, that was probably true. Certainly it seems that those who did know it closed ranks to protect it so that he could cower behind a shield of anonymity while continuing his relentless and obsessive public smear campaign. However, that is no longer the case.

Oh really? Do you know who he is or are you saying that you believe Ray and Will's theory that Scratch is Kishkumen?

[_Pahoran]

I am the sole authority as to my own motives, but that hasn't stopped you from accusing me of insincerity and trying to declare what my "true motives" are dozens of times now.

I search this thread in vain for examples of me doing that.

As will yours. For which you may one day be grateful.

I'm glad you have finally agreed that your behavior towards me was abusive.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I "finally agreed" no such thing.

However, there is nothing I have ever said in private correspondence with you which would qualify as "abusive,"

Your blindness towards your own faults remains firmly in place.

and we both know it.

That's false. I know no such thing, although I am prepared to be more charitable than you (as usual) in allowing that you sincerely believe what you assert.

This is why I am not ashamed of having any of it made known.

No, you are simply oblivious to your own faults.

So long as you are accusing me of being the instigator here,

I said that?

I will make no modifications to my blog or the OP of this thread. You keep lecturing me on not dictating the terms of this or that, without realizing that you don't get to dictate the terms of how I respond to your persistent misuse of our private correspondence.

"Persistent?"

1.Continuing firmly or obstinately in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition.

How can something be "persistent" when it has already come to an end?

I stopped quoting your PM in my sig as soon as I found out you wanted it gone. I didn't even read your blog post at that time, I just removed the sentence. Then when I found out you were upset about three-word excerpts therefrom appearing in my posts, I removed them, too.

"Persistent?"

How can you possibly justify calling it that?

Actually Proverbs 15:1 is a Jewish text which we Christians have merely co-opted (or perhaps inherited) but I shall let that pass.

I didn't say it was a Christian text; I was referring to the practice of it as something Christians should do. Consider that next time you're on a "peacemaking" mission.

Have a look back over this thread. Re-read your PM's to me. Then tell me: should I take your writings as an example of soft answers that turn away wrath?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Oh really? Do you know who he is or are you saying that you believe Ray and Will's theory that Scratch is Kishkumen?

I at one time seriously considered the possibility that Scratch was Kishkumen's sockpuppet. I've since learned otherwise.

More than that, I will not say at the moment.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

In going back over the thread, I noticed this item:

It hasn't quite been 24 hours, but I'm under the weather today. Going to bed early so that I can get up for church in the morning.

So, having issued a 24-hour ultimatum in a forum you knew (or at least had good reason to suspect) I had not visited for months, you took no chances, but got in early. Understood.

(3) I've made numerous good-faith efforts to get Pahoran to stop sharing my private messages without my permission, all to no avail.

You have?

What were those "numerous good-faith efforts", and why, previous to last week, did I hear nothing but that you wanted the one-sentence quote removed from my sig?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Cicero]

Pahoran is a shallow thinker of limited intellect.

I don't agree with that. You could say that about a number of defenders of the faith on MDD, but not him in my opinion. From what I've seen of him I would say that he is actually well read, witty and very smart. That's exactly why I find his (and Bill Hamblin's) online behavior so abhorent.

I'm somewhat reluctant to say this since I've seen enough debates on "tone" recently to last a lifetime, but from what I've seen of him Pahoran seems to spend most of his time responding to critics and questioners that haven't fully thought through their positions (and by "responding" I mean to say that he uses his considerable talents to tear them to shreds). In other words, he is a classic intellectual bully that looks for easy targets (and there are certainly plenty of critics that are easy targets . . . just spend some time reading RFM). I am skeptical when anyone claims that Pahoran or another apologist bully actually "pushed them out of the Church" (I tend to think such people were on their way out and he just slammed the door on their ass), but how he thinks his bullying is appropriate behavior from somone purporting to be a disciple of Christ is beyond me.

[_Chap]

... from what I've seen of him Pahoran seems to spend most of his time responding to critics and questioners that haven't fully thought through their positions (and by "responding" I mean to say that he uses his considerable talents to tear them to shreds). In other words, he is a classic intellectual bully that looks for easy targets (and there are certainly plenty of critics that are easy targets . . . just spend some time reading RFM). ...

Considering the degree of uncritical naïveté and mental confusion that it would take to make someone in the 21st century internet age decide to join the CoJCoLDS from cold, as it were - that is, without previous immersion in an environment where everybody took being Mormon for granted - I am not at all surprised to find that when people wish to leave the CoJCoLDS they sometimes do not express themselves in a very sophisticated or intellectually nuanced way.

So somebody who enjoys putting down naïve exmembers does not have much of a problem in finding targets. If they had been intellectually sophisticated and generally habituated to thinking critically, they probably wouldn't have joined in the first place.

Please note that I do not intend here to say anything against the intellectual capacities of those who were born into the CoJCoLDS, as opposed to joining it because the missionaries came calling.