Have the Mopologists Begun to Acquiesce on the Book of Abraham?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Whoa. Peterson equates what legally married same-sex couples do with incest, pedophilia, infidelity, orgies, public group sex, suicide, and sado-masochism.

gemli: " What can't same-sex couples do in predominantly Mormon communities, without being censured or excommunicated?"

We do, it is true, have standards for sexual behavior for those who belong to our voluntary association.

Do you have no standards for sexual behavior? Do you draw no lines? Are you perfectly fine with incest, sex with children, infidelity, polyamory, public orgies, and the like? I hope not.

-----
gemli DanielPeterson
20 hours ago
My standards are based the wishes of consenting adults, and on not taking advantage of other people, or people who are not able to give thoughtful consent. Religion doesn't enter into it.

−----
DanielPeterson Mod gemli
19 hours ago
gemli: "My standards are based the wishes of consenting adults, and on not taking advantage of other people, or people who are not able to give thoughtful consent."

So extramarital affairs and public group sex (involving adults) and incest are okay in gemli-world, right? And suicide and assisted suicide (for any reason at all, or for no particular reason at all)? And sado-masochism?
http://disq.us/p/2tw8tuh

But he's upset someone said he called gemli 'stupid'. Unbelievable.

Peterson makes the words ‘minimally exceptional’ come into sharp focus.

- Doc

[Marcus]

DanielPeterson Mod gemli
a day ago
gemli: "Torturing children is a bad thing."

From what did you derive that moral judgment? From the paleozoic strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon? From the nature of the covalent bond? By counting caribou in Glacier National Park? By contemplating bark beetles? From Kepler's third law?...

−---
gemli DanielPeterson
a day ago
I derive my moral judgment from something called "empathy." You should get some. It means being able to understand and share the feelings of others. We should not want to abuse, cheat or harm others because we wouldn't want to be cheated, harmed or abused.

Given how people respond to me, I'd say refusal to acknowledge others' views is what theological arguments are all about. Some people believe in eternal lives for large-brained monkeys, and some people roll their eyes, just as I did typing that sentence.

Can you think of a theistic regime that brutalized its people? Or are they all like heaven on earth, full of love, peace and straight people?

−---
DanielPeterson Mod gemli
a day ago
gemli: "I derive my moral judgment from something called "empathy.""

So it's based on your (commendable) subjective feelings. But would a person who lacks such empathy, for whatever reason, be "wrong"? If he feels fine with cruelty, whether generally or in a specific case, should we just shrug and say "Ah well. Potayto/potahto"? If not, why not?

gemli: "You should get some."

That was a thoroughly scummy and unjust thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself for typing it.

gemli: "We should not want to abuse, cheat or harm others because we wouldn't want to be cheated, harmed or abused."

Why not? Because gemli feels "empathy"?...

http://disq.us/p/2tw6l4a

Peterson is making an excellent case for gemli's position. Gemli's suggestion he try empathy is on point, but Peterson is confused. He can't imagine how behavior is chosen if he doesn't have an imaginary sky daddy to tell him how. His 'thoroughly scummy and unjust' attack on gemli just makes gemli's point further.

[Shulem]

You may have noticed that "SeN" excitedly announced that the latest issue of BYU Studies is "Hot off the Press!, and indeed, the issue will no doubt be of great interest to students of Mopologetics. The issue was co-edited by John Gee, Stephen O. Smoot, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson, and its content is devoted entirely to the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham is defended by the modern Church which is many generations separated from the original Church that existed in Nauvoo in 1842. The Church today is not really a representation of the Church in 1842. They simply have inherited what remains as the generations have gone by and the second coming remains ever unfulfilled.

I don't really care what the Church today say's about the Book of Abraham other than they need to stop publishing it as if it's a genuine historical record because it's not. What the Church today says about the Church in 1842 is rather moot. I take the words of what Joseph Smith said and his associates who stood by him. The authors at BYU are jokers and clowns that tap dance and sing in order to maintain their jobs and salvage their stupid testimonkeys.

There is still much that we do not know when it comes to how precisely Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself takes no official position on this point other than to affirm that the translation was accomplished by the gift and power of God (something we, the authors, also affirm).

Like I said, these guys aren't Joseph Smith or his Church. They have descended from the dregs of Mormonism, apostates of apostates, having come down from the generations of mutated Mormonism.

[Moksha]

Hoosier gemli
a day ago

Your hatred for us is well known, not a word you say can ever be taken in good faith.

With all that perceived hatred, it is no wonder that apologists eat worms.

[Marcus]

You may have noticed that "SeN" excitedly announced that the latest issue of BYU Studies is "Hot off the Press!, and indeed, the issue will no doubt be of great interest to students of Mopologetics. The issue was co-edited by John Gee, Stephen O. Smoot, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson, and its content is devoted entirely to the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham is defended by the modern Church which is many generations separated from the original Church that existed in Nauvoo in 1842. The Church today is not really a representation of the Church in 1842. They simply have inherited what remains as the generations have gone by and the second coming remains ever unfulfilled.

I don't really care what the Church today say's about the Book of Abraham other than they need to stop publishing it as if it's a genuine historical record because it's not. What the Church today says about the Church in 1842 is rather moot. I take the words of what Joseph Smith said and his associates who stood by him. The authors at BYU are jokers and clowns that tap dance and sing in order to maintain their jobs and salvage their stupid testimonkeys.

There is still much that we do not know when it comes to how precisely Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself takes no official position on this point other than to affirm that the translation was accomplished by the gift and power of God (something we, the authors, also affirm).

Like I said, these guys aren't Joseph Smith or his Church. They have descended from the dregs of Mormonism, apostates of apostates, having come down from the generations of mutated Mormonism.

This I agree is a key point

I don't really care what the Church today say's about the Book of Abraham other than they need to stop publishing it as if it's a genuine historical record because it's not.

[drumdude]

gemli: "My standards are based the wishes of consenting adults, and on not taking advantage of other people, or people who are not able to give thoughtful consent."

DCP: So extramarital affairs and public group sex (involving adults) and incest are okay in gemli-world, right? And suicide and assisted suicide (for any reason at all, or for no particular reason at all)? And sado-masochism?

I know it’s been posted twice already but it deserves a 3rd.


What the heck is going on with DCP lately?? Is he on some kind of cancer treatment that’s affecting his historically )at least somewhat) cogent arguments?

[Shulem]

You may have noticed that "SeN" excitedly announced that the latest issue of BYU Studies is "Hot off the Press!,

My response for the section covering Facsimile No. 3:

Facsimile 3: Judgment Scene or Presentation Scene?

YOU stupid Mormon dodos! It is not worthy of an intelligent response from me! You guys are pricks!!!!!

STUPID!

John Gee, you so need to have your ass kicked, you little prick. Come to Discuss Mormonism so I can beat you up in front everybody -- YOU PUNK!!



Gee, you're a bully. And, you're a punk! Your poodle (Muhlestein) is a laughing stalk and a joke as well.

And Smoot, you so need to get yourself a boyfriend. Give it up. Get on with it and move on. Jesus F. Christ!




PS. Peterson, you're still as fat as ever.

[Philo Sofee]

You may have noticed that "SeN" excitedly announced that the latest issue of BYU Studies is "Hot off the Press!,

My response for the section covering Facsimile No. 3:

Facsimile 3: Judgment Scene or Presentation Scene?

YOU stupid Mormon dodos! It is not worthy of an intelligent response from me! You guys are pricks!!!!!

STUPID!

John Gee, you so need to have your ass kicked, you little prick. Come to Discuss Mormonism so I can beat you up in front everybody -- YOU PUNK!!



Gee, you're a bully. And, you're a punk! Your poodle (Muhlestein) is a laughing stalk and a joke as well.

And Smoot, you so need to get yourself a boyfriend. Give it up. Get on with it and move on. Jesus F. Christ!




PS. Peterson, you're still as fat as ever.

Relax.......we shall dismantle them one chapter at a time.....

[Gadianton]

Why does Mormonism care so much about this extra meta-claim of restoration? Why not just let the scriptures and the doctrines and the ordinances all be new revelations granted to modern prophets?

You have good questions, but I think there's an answer.

Where you're going with it is that, if someone has a connection to The Source, then that's it's game over. It's the wild card that trumps everything. And certainly Mormon leaders today and even yesterday are going to play that card.

But you have two problems. On the one hand, you want to be able to say, "look, the Source has spoken, the matter is closed". But, you have to have a gimmick to rope people in. I don't think the narratives Smith aped in his day are terribly different than what draw people today, just look at the banality of the Davinci Code yet it had this huge following. God certainly didn't have to pull this paradigm-shift of a metaphor to be God or anything, but it's these weird connections and story-lines that fascinate people. And people are sitting at the edge of their seats looking for some deep answer. And so if you can't make good on that hidden thing being the mind-blowing event of the century when people start questioning the logic, then you can't pull the reductionist card with anybody caring.

Another way to look at it: Look at Denver Snuffer. Even though people in the Church accept the whole reductionist logic that God called Smith, Smith ordained xyz, xyz ordained xyzwtf, and on until the shallow and abrasive Rusty the Tin Man Nelson. But there's no magic. Magic is the story. When the story reveals plot-holes, the magic vaporizes and reductionist logic isn't of interest to anybody.

[Shulem]

Relax.......we shall dismantle them one chapter at a time.....

Okay, ok, you're right. I'm relaxed now and I just dropped the other shoe in the Celestial forum:

Egyptian chronology vs. biblical chronology via Shem



It's all in the numbers, Philo.