The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_cwald]

Lou Midgley wrote:

If one cares to see that which does not manifest love but something rather debasing and crude, please have a look at the responses of Remo, CrazyHamster, True Believer, Inquiring Mind, Jenny, wayfarer, EternityIsNow, cwald and alas to my essay, all of which can be found at http://forum.neworde...hp?f=1&t=29154. (New Order Mormon) Then one might be able to see exactly why I find these marginal movements on the fringes of the community of Saints less than helpful, if not actually demonic.

[_robuchan]

Kind of off topic these days, but I find this hilarious from a newbie named emarkp

This is an issue which has caused me a lot of personal pain in the last few years.

He went to his bishop to demand him to explain why the church is using PC/liberal political language in its defense of Hispanic members. He's in a lot of personal pain because the church won't back him up in his racist anti-immigration stance. So sad for him.

[_SteelHead]

Wanderer7 Wrote:

Does it matter whether it's "policy" or "commandment"? If it comes through the chain of priesthood keys, we ought to receive it as if from the Lord Himself. Even if the Lord didn't directly give it, remember, by the voice of God or His servants, it is the same. If for no other reason, we ought to keep policy to preserve unity and harmony and to prevent dissension and apostasy. If you do have an issue with a policy, you should keep it to yourself...

...according to Wilford Woodruff "No man who has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the kingdom of God and lead the people astray," and "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray." In other words, even if we do not believe the prophet is correct, we may be under obligation by their office to obey for the sake of obedience.

... I believe that even uninspired direction from the leaders of the church ought to be complied with. Generally speaking, by virtue of their calling from the Lord, their counsel is to be received as if from the Lord. Again, if their counsel seems to be harmful, we should express our concerns in the proper manner so as not to encourage dissension.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60153-obedience-to-policy/

These people never think their pontifications through to their rational conclusions.

By this pronouncement:
We know the reason for the priesthood ban.
Polygamy should have never been abandoned.
Adam is God.

[_3sheets2thewind]

FARMS is universally popular with average Mormons....it is what got me started in graduate studies. Nothing is going to change that.

[_cwald]

Daniel "Who? Me?" Peterson Wrote:

It's amusing and instructive to see Kishkumen's Hit Place so perpetually exercised about Greg Smith's supposed "hit piece."

[_cwald]

Midgley Wrote:

The real problem is not recent threats made against Professor Peterson. Instead, the real problem is the lack of civility manifest by marginal LDS, former LDS, NOMs and so-called Recovering types, all of whom blast away at anyone who seems to challenge their understanding of things. There are some notorious offenders, including John Dehlin when he feels his little business endeavor is being challenged. Has he ever once admonished his followers to restrain their rhetorical violence? What we have is much hate speech directed at Latter-day Saints who do not adopt a certain stance or approve of some version of priestcraft or whatever

Oh the irony.

What an absolute hypocrite.

[_Stormy Waters]

So I've been browsing over on MD&D and found this in Cinepros' Book of Abraham thread.

While the Egyptian stuff has caused some members to lose faith, it has caused others of us to grow in faith (it has motivated us to research well beneath the surface of the text and well beyond the confines of the text, where we have found a wealth of spiritual enlightenment).

And, it has been a valuable winnowing devise to separate the wheat from the tares, and separate those who trust in the arm of flesh over God.

So, it is not surprising to find men who seem particularly vulnerably to relying on men, seeking to counsel God about what to remove in relation to sacred scripture, and this in terms of elements that test one's reliance on God. In short, those who may be most prone to failing this particular test of faith, are the one's seeking to get rid of the test.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When people use arguments like this I think the easiest rebuttal always is to turn it around and try apply it another belief system. Although people are offended by the comparisons at times, there is no reason you can't take his basic argument here and use it to defend an unpopular belief system or an absurd one.

This line in particular could equally apply to any belief system facing contradictory evidence.

It has been a valuable winnowing devise to separate the wheat from the tares, and separate those who trust in the arm of flesh over God.

Doubling down on your beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence isn't a virtue, and trying to portray those who are amenable to evidence as somehow less moral than you is reprehensible.

Also in response to this comment mfbukowski replied, "Nailed it."

[_Bazooka]

This line in particular could equally apply to any belief system facing contradictory evidence.

It has been a valuable winnowing devise to separate the wheat from the tares, and separate those who trust in the arm of flesh over L. Ron Hubbard.

Yep, your theory seems to work...

[_Shiloh]

I've been looking at the Women getting ordained site and what I found most interesting about this session was the talks on Priesthood emphasizing the different roles of men and women. Every conference it seems like they are aware what issues are prominent and address them. I didn't even realize a woman was giving a prayer until half way through it. I honestly didn't think it was a big deal and I'm glad I'm not in a position where I'd have to do it.

Deborah, giving testimony of the prophetic power of Google and an internet connection.

Simply amazing that Church leaders knew about issues that have been featured prominently in the SL Tribune and elsewhere.

[_cwald]

Ahab wrote:

Yes. It's always better to speak to a General Authority in a private meeting than to let others know you're having some trouble.

Hmmm? I guess I've been going about it all wrong. I better pick up the phone and give Elder Oaks a call? I wonder if he will pick up?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/605 ... he-church/

And again from Ahab:

The point is that it would be better to have a private meeting with the General Authority than to let others know you're having some trouble.

Some people seem to think it's okay to go ahead and let others know they're having some trouble with what a General Authority has said if it's too much trouble for them to meet with a General Authority, but that's actually the worse thing to do. If you can't meet with the General Authority in person, for some reason, then don't let others know you're having some trouble with what he has said. Keep it to yourself or between you and God or set up a private meeting...