The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Stormy Waters]

It's perfectly fine to point out the biases of any author and it is true that pure objectivity is a mirage, but what bugs me about apologists is that they sometimes seem to think that pointing out these facts ends the argument in their favor. I guess it does end the argument with those that share the apologist's biases and maybe those are the only people the apologist cares to convince?

Certianly true objectivity is impossible, it's just the utter hypocrisy that dazzles me. By using his own reasoning you can disqualify apologists sevenfold. Can you get any more biased than trying to prove your religion is plausible?

[_3sheets2thewind]

Not sure if these made it

Mortal Man, on 24 May 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

Thus, I will be concentrating my future research into limited areas of the FARMS Review, which show the most promise of containing polemical material.

Daniel Peterson: I cheerfully acknowledge, in advance, that the FARMS Review has a polemical edge. I don't apologize for this.


Mortal Man, on 24 May 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

My new theory posits that, some time ago, a very small group of polemicists introduced themselves into a large preexisting population of respectable authors. This would explain the lack of evidence for polemical material in the large corpus of articles we have today.

Daniel Peterson: Your hypothesis is essentially true,...

[_cwald]

KevinG said:

I am amazed that so many have bought into the anti-Mormon canard that we are led by a top down dictatorial leadership structure when most of the important decisions on implementing the church programs are held at a very local level and those leaders are subject to counsels and membership.

Wade Englund said, just a few posts down from Kevin's

Now, what clearly has worked is the top-down approach, where Christ, through his chosen leaders, affects desired changes, and members implement those changes in their individual lives.

Unbelievable. So I guess Wade is one of those anti-mormon who have bought into the canard that we have top-down leadership structure.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59073-dissent-another-attempt-to-discuss/page__st__60

[_3sheets2thewind]

William Schyver:

I think it's more a sign of why I should simply refrain altogether from participating on message boards. This is hardly the first time I have been horribly misunderstood and evoked strong negative reactions from people when nothing could have been further from my original intention.

There you have it msjack, it was all a horrible misunderstanding.

[_Cinnamon Bear Head]

Mopology has had a negative effect on education in geography.

USU says:

Isles of the Sea.


Hmmmmm.


Isn't Great Britain an Island?

Isn't Jutland an Island?

[_cwald]

Just a whole lot of ass-anity in this MAD thread. I apologize for all the quotes...but I think some of you who can't visit the site might appreciate it.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59240-bishop-quits-because-of-military-service-anyone-know/page__st__20

mfbukowski said:

Why do you care and what business is it of yours?

Kenngo1969 said;

That's actually a pretty good question. I don't know of anyone who's ever been barred from a particular Church calling because of having killed someone in military service, yet this brother allegedly is unfit to serve for having devised and/or employed tactics in which no one was killed? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

cdowis said:

I suggest that you check your link. It gives a reference to a letter where they give their personal opinion on the matter. But I understand the difference between a personal opinion and a statute of law.

We are not bound by "internation law". Check out the US Constitution if you have any question on that issue.

Bob Oliverio, on 27 October 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:
Would God have known about it? Why would He make such a calling if He knew about it?

ERayR said: Maybe he weighed the lives saved against the short term discomfort of a few terrorists.

rpn said:

...What I don't get is people here saying they wouldn't sustain him because they don't like what he did in the course of his duties, none of which have gotten him any church discipline, or prevented his being called? Does that mean we get to refuse sustain leaders who don't do their share of the laundry, or who use corporal punishment with their children, or who run companies that we think damage the environment?

rodheadlee said:

So, soldiers who have fought on the front lines and killed people are not allowed to serve as a Bishop? Airforce or Navy pilots who have dropped bombs on the enemy are not allowed to serve? I'm asking because I truly don't know the answer to this and I fail to see the difference.

storm rider said:

It is nice to know that you have not only judged him, but also found yourself capable of making such judgments. One who can justify sitting themselves on the judgment seat for their fellowman may have problems when standing before the Master; they will be judged by the same standards they have used to condemn others. Good luck with that.

[_cwald]

Ahab Said:

I voted for Romney pretty much because I had to. My wife did, too. We really didn't like either one more than the other.

We Mormons are supposed to be Republicans and vote for Republicans, don't cha know, so that's what we did. We had to.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59314-last-nights-election/page__st__20

[_cwald]

Finally Wade Englund admits what most people over here already know....now if he would only apply the lesson to his own words and actions. Never going to happen.

I am finding that more and more these days that prejudice is being projected. In other words, often these days the people pointing fingers at the alleged prejudices of others are inadvertently exposing their own more extensive and deep-seated prejudices. It is an odd phenomena that tends to underscore the adage that we humans tend to dislike most in others what is more pronounced in ourselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Falcon A]

cinepro said

You'll be happy to hear that the "razor blade in the apples" stories were just urban legends.

But that still doesn't stop me from going to Safeway every October 31 to buy a bag of apples and a box of razor blades, just to see the look on the cashier's face.

Lol. I like his posts.

[_cwald]

From an old recently resurrected thread, Gender Gap Widens In The Church discussing how there are so many more faithful LDS women than men, and may have to marry non members or not marry at all...

Kenngo 1969 said:

And (please forgive my cynicism here) some will "have" to marry outside the faith because they look beyond the mark.

P.S.: And I know that because I'm one of the ones they look past as they do that.

Or maybe you are just a misogynist douchebag?


http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56653-gender-gap-widens-in-the-church/


Anddddddd...it just keeps getting worse. Sad really.

Nominee said:

I am 39, single and will absolutely never marry any man that cannot go to the temple with me. I know for a fact that my Heavenly Father wants no less for me than to be sealed for eternity to my husband and our family. He expects no less. If I do not meet my husband in this life I will meet him after this life. I live righteously and worthily and I have complete faith in the love my Heavenly Father has for me and the promises he has made. I know that my needs and desires will be met because I will always do my very best to make God's interests my own. God is a better judge of character than I am. There is zero possibility for me to have less than a temple marriage because I choose what is right for me. And I will be married someday because eternity is a long time given to meet the right guy. I want to live in the Celestial kingdom, I want to live with my Father. I wouldn't settle for less and I wouldn't advise my daughter to either. Mortality is minuscule.